Talk:Macintosh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 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!
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article is on a subject of Top-importance within Macs for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
Featured article star Macintosh is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy Macintosh appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 10, 2006.
Article Creation and Improvement Drive Macintosh was the Article Creation and Improvement Drive for the week starting on Sunday, 08 October 2006.

For more details, see the Article Creation and Improvement Drive history.
Peer review Macintosh has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Engtech article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.
This article is a former Macintosh collaboration. It was in the spotlight from December 4, 2005 to December 28, 2005. The Collaboration is managed by WikiProject Macintosh, an attempt to improve, grow, and standardize Wikipedia's articles related to Apple Macintosh and Apple Computer.


Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] unit formatting

I have reverted to the version with the correct formatting of units as per the manual of style and several international standards. --Ali@gwc.org.uk

Changing KB to kB would be most appropriate if the context were thousand-byte units instead of 1024 bytes, but since in this context the article means 1024 bytes, KB should stand. See Kilobyte. -JohnRDaily 16:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
fair enough, I've changed all to KB. I suppose most correctly it should be KiB but IMO that is more likely to confuse in a non-technical article where precision is not critical. --Ali@gwc.org.uk 18:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, your supposition of correct style is supported by the Manual of style. It actually recommends 'KiB' if you know it is 1024 and 'kB' if you know it is 1000. The style 'KB' is not recommended in those circumstances, perhaps because it creates/perpetuates an ambiguity. If you dig into the archives, you will find the extensive debates that preceded that guidance. I hope that helps. bobblewik 23:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

KiB is incredibly foolish- as well as pretentious- either way. I can't quite think of why anyone would have ever come up with the term "KiB," other than for reasons of safety; when it's dangerous to confused the two terms, and of course, I cannot think of any scenario which would fit that description. To be perfectly frank, I had to look up the term "KiB" when I first stumbled across its hideous presence- on this site, of course, it exists practically nowhere else. Having long understood the difference between a KB in terms of RAM, and a KB in terms of a HDD, as anyone with a brain does, I see no point in marring a page with it- it's not only ugly, it bothers the reader (and by reader, I mean me, and anyone else like me), causing him or her to lose focus on the article itself and look for information elsewhere. There really is no ambiguity; most everyone who would understand what a KB is in the first place, realizes the difference between the two uses in their various contexts. I mean, seriously, if we're going to be this ridiculous, why not come up with alternate spellings for words which are spelled the same, but are pronounced differently (like tear and tear), or better yet, the different meanings- since "run" means more than fifty different things, let's come up with fifty plus spellings. Sound good? I sure think so, gee, what a swell idea..

And by the way, it's Kbit and Mbit, not KBit and MBit; bit is lowercase, byte is uppercase. If it's never bothered anyone for the last four+ years this page has been up, why start now? Dan 23:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I am about to get strong a feeling of déjà vu. The audience for the k/K/Ki style debate is probably not reading this page. Your point about insider knowledge was mentioned in the debate and the archive may be your friend. I don't understand about HDD and RAM data so I did not take part. You may wish to read the archives or ask about the issue in the MoS talk page. I definitely agree with you that bit is 'bit' not 'Bit'. bobblewik 23:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
The units most definitely should be changed to IEC binary prefixes where appropriate as recommended by WP:MOSNUM. I would change them myself, but I have no prior involvement in this article so I won't presume and stir up trouble. I will mention, however, that this has been debated numerous times, and the usage of IEC prefixes (which are being adopted by IEEE) has won out every time (thus the current policy on MOSNUM). The "I've never seen it" argument has been used nearly every time, and has been refuted equally many times. I therefore highly suggest you change units like KB, MB, and GB to their IEC counterparts where it's appropriate.
What I really came here to say, however, is that proper unit convention places a non-breaking space between quantity and unit, i.e. "16 MHz", not "16MHz". That's standard practice for all scientific organizations and is of course also suggested at WP:MOSNUM#Units. I'm adding the   character entity to all the number/unit uses in the article (which are rather a lot). -- uberpenguin 19:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No... that's standard practice for Wikipedia, not technical sites (including Apple) which know anything about what they're doing. A space looks foolish and amateurish. "Scientific organizations," I might imagine, would perhaps use "cycles" instead of "Hz." I'm seeing more and more of this space nonsense, for whatever reason, even on the web... Dan 18:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The spaces were added in good faith and in line with the manual of style, please do not revert them, articles aren't owned and your opinion is for spaces to be gone, however the community has decided that they want them there.Mike (T C) 20:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Where's the "community" that decided this? This article has been "spaceless" for years, only a few people tried to change it... I also don't see any real reason to change every single existing article to this way.. after all, some articles are in US English and some are in British English.

No, articles aren't owned... which begs the question... can I start deleting everything I added? Dan 20:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC) P.S., maybe it should be decided on a case by case basis.. by those who actually contribute?

The community came up with the manual of style, the point is all articles are to be formated according to this. Every article in a paper encyclopedia is formatted the same way, thus every article in wikipedia should be formatted the same. And no, everything you added belong to wikipedia no you now. Also some are in US English and some in British because neither is incorrect. Mike (T C) 00:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
If WP:MOSNUM isn't enough for you, how about ISO, the SI, and every single country and organization in the world that uses SI (i.e. most industrialized countries in Europe, Asia, and the Americas and major standards organizations; IEC and IEEE for example). May I direct your attention to ISO 31-0 and SI#SI writing style? Even in countries that don't officially adopt SI (like the USA), almost all professionals respect the SI's standards as correct technical notation. That's certainly the case at every university and research institute I'm familiar with. Sir, if you wish to argue my changes to correct SI unit convention, this is not the place; you should take up your issue on WP:MOSNUM. However I advise that you'll likely be overwhelmingly disagreed with. If Apple's website (which is produced by its marketing division, not its engineers and programmers) happens to ignore SI convention, then they are wrong and you come across as rather foolish in wildly defending them without doing your homework first. -- uberpenguin 01:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


Also some are in US English and some in British because neither is incorrect. ...Wow. Was that supposed to be reasoning? If your direct implication is that "1.6GHz" is incorrect, and that it should always be written as "1.6 GHz," you had better and go tell Apple (and by Apple, I mean virtually everyone) that they've had it wrong all along, and you've got the answers. For example.. [1]. Anyway. I still don't know what you mean by "the community," nor am I clear on when this transpired. Are you talking about Wikipedia as a whole? When it was formed? Just this page? Recently? I don't think I need to point out exemplifying that fact that just because a consensus is formed, it isn't automatically correct. I also don't know why you bother changing articles you don't have anything to do with, when they've been doing just fine the way they are.

Ok.. what about publications like MacWorld? FiringSquad? Dan 01:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

...Penguin could you kindly cite something other than the organization in question? I'm not really sure what SI has to do with anything, though.

P.S., as for programmers, I have yet to see a program that, when displaying component speed (GPU, CPU, RAM etc) adds a space in between. Dan 01:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"I'm not really sure what SI has to do with anything, though." Dear sir, if you don't realize the relevance of SI to a conversation on correct unit convention, then you shouldn't even be attempting to discuss it. In any case, I'm not going to argue this further. Wikipedia's manual of style states that quantities and units should be separated by a non-breaking space. That alone is plenty of justification for the article to remain as I changed it to be. If you have a problem with the policy, you need to take it up on WP:MOSNUM, not complain about it here. -- uberpenguin 01:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, regarding the USA, NIST endorses SI unit convention on this matter as well [2]. -- uberpenguin 01:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
My response to that statement is blunt but to the point: It's a wiki. Deal with it. -- uberpenguin 13:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok... but why have things like "256-Kbit RAM chips" been changed to 256 Kbit? This is indicative of the chips' density... am I missing something? Even Andy Hertzfeld, in the book which I got this information to put it on the page, put it this way. Incidentally, he also put it as "128K of RAM" ;-) Dan 06:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to the change of the dash to a space, same justification as before. 'Kbit' is still a unit, albeit a rather ambiguous one to use. This one is particularly bad because 'Kbit' is often used in the communications industry to mean what SI intends: 103 bits. However, I somewhat suspect the usage here refers to 210 bits. I'd recommend trying to figure out which usage is intended and remove the ambiguity with the IEC prefixes recommended by MoS. -- uberpenguin 06:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's memory- and more specifically, refers to the chip density used on the RAM modules in the original Macintosh. Therefore it is 2^10; memory (that is, computer RAM; flash drives often aren't) is always binary... storage (hard drives) is always listed as 10^x (except, quite often SCSI); I don't know what to call it, that's just how it is. Modules with 256-Kbit density, if there are, say, eight chips per side per module and both sides of the module are populated, obviously makes sixteen chips; 16*(1/32MB)is obviously 0.5MB (though actually the chips were soldered to the MoBo rather than on modules). Anyhow, the point is that it's usually shown as "x-Mbit density". Dan 05:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If no one objects within a day, i'm going to change it back to 256-Kbit... it's the same principle as 32-bit etc. Dan 06:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You're using Kbit as a unit; it should remain in proper unit convention. I won't revert you if you change it back, but realize that MoS recommends you follow proper unit convention. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-03-24 06:58Z 06:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I object, you are pushing your formatting guidelines over the communities, what makes your desicions and views greater than the manual of styles which was agreed upon by the wikipedia community? Mike (T C) 07:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, no... I'm not sure that's true. Could you link me to something specifically talking about bit densities? It's not a 256KB module, they're chips of 256-Kbit density...

You're talking across terms. "Density" is a physical property and is expressed in a unit, no matter how you look at it. If you follow MoS, you should use proper SI unit convention. The dash is not proper unit convention; only a non-breaking space is. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-03-24 18:06Z

All right, if you're sure. What about 32/64-bit then? 32-bit processor, 256-Kbit chips... ? >_< Dan 00:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That's definitely a fuzzy area. One could argue that "x-bit" in reference to a CPU's internal integer precision is more a property of the design than a measure of quantity. Indeed, the bitness acts more like a label since it merely describes the width of certain pathways and storage locations within the design. With continuous memory capacities you are definitely using "byte" as a unit of quantity/volume, but I'd say that bit labels are just properties. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-03-25 01:27Z 01:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. It definitely is a fuzzy area. Lol... "bitness." Nice. Dan 03:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't "Kbit" being used as an adjective here rather than a numerical unit? Hence, shouldn't it actually follow linguistical convention, not mathematical conventions? Which, in a Germanic language like English, prefers disambiguation by hyphenation.
For example, elsewhere on this discussion page, I used a whole phrase as an adjective and, thus, it was simple and correct disambiguation of the "double adjective" problem which is inherent to the English language to use "like-not-for-like comparison" and not "like not for like comparison"; Admittedly, it can be considered poor "style" to use large phrases as adjectives - my defence is that I was being wholly informal there - but hyphenation is the correct form of disambiguation linguistically when such forms are used. You actually introduce ambiguity - not remove it - by trying to force what is actually an adjective into a numerical form.
As examples, "8-ball potting" is not the same as "8 ball potting" (the hyphen disambiguates: The 8-ball is potted. The second might or might not mean the 8-ball is potted or it might alternatively mean 8 individual balls are potted), "3-inch screw" is not the same as "3 inch screw" (the hyphen disambiguates: The first clearly means a screw which is 3 inches in length, the second might or might not mean that or it could alternatively mean three screws which are an inch in length).
Note also that when I wrote it as "number + unit" - a screw of 3 inches - rather than "adjective noun" - 3-inch screw - the hyphen is not required to disambiguate a numerical form and it is this form to which SI standards refer to. Linguistical convention overrides mathematical notation in this instance, as an adjective is a linguistical - not mathematical - form.
On the contrary, the removal of the hyphen introduces ambiguity in semantics. English inherently has a "double adjective" ambiguity problem in its very grammar; "Large ship repairs" could as equally mean "large (ship repairs)" (a large amount of standard ship repair) or it could mean "(large ship) repairs" (an indeterminate amount of repair to large ships). Any double adjective + noun combination trips up this grammatical ambiguity, which is why hyphenation is often used on adjectives to disambiguate: "large-ship repair" leaves no doubt whatsoever that large ships are being repaired.
This is a linguistical matter because "256-Kbit" is being used as an adjective, in the same way as "32-bit OS" or "pay-as-you-go mobile". The hyphen actually disambiguates the phrase - thanks to the hyphen you can be sure that it means one operating system of 32-bit capacity and not 32 individual "bit operating systems" - and it is the removal which creates ambiguity.
Mathematical notation and language are not necessarily always compatible in style. Were this "number + unit" then I would wholly agree that the mathematical notation would override but, in this particular usage, "256-Kbit" is an adjective and this is a linguistical form where English grammar, not maths, overrides.
Note that I do wholly agree otherwise with the opinion that SI should be adopted if this is Wikipedia's overall style advice (despite, as a programmer, who never use spaces, finding this "designed by committee" nonsense distinctly ugly and pointless) but you are over-specifying; Ramming the point too hard, taking it well beyond its actual realm of application. SI does not override English grammar and the usage here is an adjective, which is in the grammatical domain. PetrochemicalPete 06:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
In the phrase "100 GB hard disk", "100 GB" acts as an adjective, yet we still write it to conform to SI standards. Per current stylistic guidelines you should try to conform to SI convention wherever possible. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-07-19 13:48Z

[edit] RV... s inside or outside the brackets...

Sorry, the link didn't show up in the edit summary. links MoS PaulC/T+ 05:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Eh? It doesn't matter if it's already piped. For example, it was [Republican Party|Republicans]... no need to do [ |Republican]s. Dan 05:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where's the featured article star in article?

I don't see a star in the article. If it's a featured article, then there should be a star. Is there any particular reason that the star is missing? --141.213.196.250 09:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Look in the right hand corner.--HereToHelp 12:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mac Rumors

I've re-added macrumors.com because it is relevent, and has a high alexa ranking (2335 to be exact). If Apple does not appreciate this website in this article they can make a formal request to the Wikimedia foundation, but otherwise there is no reason not to add it. Mike (T C) 19:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I've no idea what an "alexa ranking" is, but I can assure you, if Apple doesn't want it here, it won't be a "formal request," it will be a legal demand. I know for a fact that Apple has taken legal action against rumor sites in the past. Dan 19:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
1) we are not a rumor site, however we can link to them. 2) alexa is a ranking website, we use it on here to judge notability of websites, [WP:WEB] for more info. Mike (T C) 21:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Also to explain a bit more on the alexa ranking, 2335 is not enough to be notable enough to have its own article if you read the alexa test on WP:WEB, HOWEVER since the is an apple machintosh article/website the ranking is quite high, since alexa only tracks hits from windows computers, so IMO it is a high enough score. Any objections? Mike (T C) 21:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure you could find more objectional externals links. Keep it in.--HereToHelp 22:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
You're not making a whit of sense, Mike. Dan 01:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
How so? Explain what dosen't make sense? Mike (T C) 05:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Saying that a site shouldn't be added because "Apple wouldn't like it" is ridiculous. Rumors are an enormous part of the Mac community. Apple regularly acknowledges the existence of rumor sites with several references by Steve Jobs in keynotes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.97.27.85 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC).

Why add them here when they've already got a full mention under Mac rumors community? Do they have particularly good info on Mac history, and for that matter is it reliable? I'd add The Mac Observer and MacInTouch: before bothering with rumor sites. Also, didn't know the were a site that apple was suing, certainly I avoid giving hits to Think Secret who seem to be more trouble than they're worth. ..dave souza, talk 22:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Didn't realize it was already linked through a separate article, I say removed it. Mike (T C) 23:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms of relevence or importance of Mac market share

I've added some reasons why Mac advocates often criticize the attention the Mac's market share often gets in the press with links to supporting articles. I did not include arguments from Mac critics as to why market share is relevant. Someone with the time is free to go ahead so long as the arguments are properly sourced. --Cab88 20:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. The intro to the section saying "Apple has struggled to gain a significant share of the personal computer market" is more problematic, as their share has at times made them the largest manufacturer, and they're still one of the biggest: they've obviously also remained significant as an innovator and non-MS approach. The significance of share has been that their low proportion of the OS market has made them a less obvious market for software developers, in turn discouraging buyers anxious to be able to run any software they come across or, in some cases, need. Hence the frequent Death Knell pronouncements gleefully listed by TMO. ...dave souza, talk 22:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Market share isn't a good indicator. If you look at how popular the products are, how "iPod" is more easily recognized than "digital music player", then and only then can you grasp the significance of Apple.--HereToHelp 22:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't make any sense HereToHelp, that sounds more like defending a religion than discussing a computer. Market share is a very good indicator of how many people use a computer and how much money the manufacturers of that computer are making. iPod is indeed recognised, but that's probably because it has the largest market share. If iPods only had a 3% market share, like Macs do, they wouldn't be famous at all.
Huh? The Mac gets tons of buzz despite only having a 3% market share (just use a simple Google Trends query for evidence). He's right: market share doesn't matter. Especially not to the Mac users I know. Anonymous 198736 22:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Buzz and "popularity" are different from the actual ownership and purchasing trends. As the foremost competitor to the PC, it is easy to understand why there would be a constant and notable buzz surrounding the Mac, just as there is constant buzz around PCs and Windows. Market share may not matter to Mac owners; of course it doesn't, they've already got Macs and in some cases are happy that they are part of a small group who "gets it". Market share and install base matters in an economic sense, as sofware developers are more likely to invest time into programming for a specific system if it that system is more widespread (and thus able to garner more profit e.g. why are more prominent video games made for Windows than Macs and Linux-driven systems combined?). Macs are "popular" not because they are as widespread as PCs but because of the way they are marketed and the fact that, unlike PCs which are produced by a number of OEMs, Macs are all made by Apple -- thus giving a unified front to present against the PC market. The "popularity" serves to increase Apple's visibility, but unless it makes people buy Macs (thus increasing market share and the install base) it has no effect other than generating a cult phenomenon. -207.245.81.138 15:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not really sure how relevant the whole thing section is in general.. shouldn't this be more part of Apple Computer? Dan 17:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
The other problem with measuring by "market share" - and is something I found odd not to be mentioned in the article at the moment - is a rather simple fact that makes a large difference to how you interpret these "market share" figures: Namely, only Apple make Apples.
Whereas the PC share might be larger, it is divided between a myriad of "clone" manufacturers. While Apple share their "niche" with no-one else.
The PC is a loose standard - more of a general concept than a specific product - while the Mac is a specific product range of specific models produced by one solitary company.
Such an "apples vs. oranges" (pardon the pun) unfair like-not-for-like comparison is grossly misleading, to say the least, in fairly judging Apple's success. If reassessed in terms of "per manufacturer" then Apple's survival and success - especially against the tidal wave force of the PC in the market, as the hardware has not been compatible until the recent transition to x86 CPUs - is staggeringly good (not least when we further factor in that the range of manufacturers producing PCs has regularly changed and has not remained constant nor static. Even its very inventor, IBM, got the stuffing knocked out of it by "clone" manufacturers that it lost control of its own invention. Many PC manufacturers have perished and new ones have taken their place over the time).
A simplistic "Mac vs. PC" market share view is comparable to "Washington D.C. vs. all 50 American states combined" or "Glasgow vs. the rest of the European Union" or "my personal phone bill vs. the national debt of Japan".
Of course a single instance is going to compare badly to a whole class. It is, in fact, a measure of Apple's staggering success - not failure - that even with such a grossly biased measure as this, they still don't actually look all that bad.
The use of "market share" here stinks a little of some kind of delibrate "black propganda" by rival (PC) manufacturers to push the comparison to be made falsely at this level, to attempt to invoke a "self-fulfilling prophecy"; Use this metric and Apple looks bad (relatively speaking), which appears to confirm "Apple are heading downhill" predictions by PC manufacturers to scare off customers away from Apple. Which, if successful in scaring off enough customers, could ironically make the "prophecy" come true, simply by planting that "fear, uncertainty and doubt" in the minds of the buying public.
Arguably, if the use of "market share" in this instance is actually derived from a potential delibrate campaign of statistical manipulations, by their rivals, to try to smear Apple then couldn't it be argued that if this article even gives that metric some credence as reasonable or respectable, it could be considered a NPOV violation (to propogate a bias as if objective fact)?
Further, if estimates can vary as wildly from 3% up to 16% then, regardless of any such potential bias in the numbers themselves, is the metric at all useful anyway, when it appears so unreliable and varies so wildly? PetrochemicalPete 05:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The display glitch

Is that display glitch cited in the "Advantages, disadvantages and criticisms" section a hardware problem with the Intel iMac, a bug in some piece of software that also shows up on other machines, or a bug in, for example, a driver for the Intel iMac's video hardware that doesn't show up on other hardware?

And is it somehow more significant than display glitches on PC's running Windows, PC's running Linux+X11, PC's running Solaris+X11, PC's running FreeBSD+X11, etc. - or other bugs in OS X, for that matter? Guy Harris 06:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe its firmware related, Apple have put out updates which are said to fix the problem - I am using an Intel iMac and I have had no problems, I updated all the software on it the day I got it. I wouldn't say its too important to mention, the newest Macs (revision As) always have some sort of minor glitches that are fixed later on. — Wackymacs 07:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Never seen that in earlier models I have used: nuBus Performa 5200, iBook; neither in GNU Debian Sarge running on Performa. Occasionally, something similar can be seen while using Lotus Notes application in MS Win XP Prof. I have installed all available updating to my Intel iMac running now OS X 10.4.6. It has changed nothing. I know I'm not the only one experiencing this bug. I look ahead excited for some reaction by Apple. I can generate the defect any time quite easily while scrolling the window by rotating the small ball on the top of the mouse. - Polarit 10:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with Guy and Wackymacs that the glitch isn't notable enough for inclusion in this article. As Guy pointed out, display glitches in software aren't uncommon at all. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-04-10 12:16Z
Yes, maybe (very maybe) it merits inclusion in the iMac article, but certainly not here. A case of recentism, in my opinion. -- grm_wnr Esc 13:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I would definitely say it is more relevant.. you don't expect to see glitches on the Mac OS, you do, perhaps, on Windows. Dan 17:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but is the fact that there is a display bug in one of the latest Macs so important as to warrant the inclusion of a picture (or even a mention) in an overview article about 20+ years? It's not like they burst into flames or something... -- grm_wnr Esc 18:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PageMaker/InDesign

I have to disagree with you Dan, Indesign is the pagemaker replacement for OSX, you can't get pagemaker for OSX thus it has been replaced by Indesign. Or am I missing something huge and obvious and going to feel dumb? Mike (T C) 20:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

InDesign may have *superseded* PageMaker, but PageMaker did not *become* InDesign. InDesign was developed separately, and PageMaker effectively allowed to wither and die. --Ali@gwc.org.uk 21:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes but it replaces PageMaker even though it was developed separate from it. If you were to call and ask to buy pagemaker for OSX they would tell you it has been replaced by Indesign. Mike (T C)
Yes, but they won't say "that's now called InDesign", so saying "Aldus PageMaker (now Adobe InDesign)" could be misleading. If "now" means "people now use InDesign" (and they don't just use PageMaker in Classic), then "now Adobe InDesign" might be viewed as accurate, but if "now" means "Aldus PageMaker is now called Adobe InDesign", that's not at all accurate. The item is historical, so the main point is that PageMaker was used at the time. One could argue that even bothering to note that it's now Adobe PageMaker isn't necessary, given that the Aldus PageMaker link takes you to the Adobe PageMaker page. Guy Harris 22:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Aldus Pagemaker was bought by adobe to create adobe pagemaker. Pagemaker was then discontinued and now Indesign is seen as the successor of pagemaker (from wikipedia pagemaker entry). Since pagemaker is not supported on OSX, and Indeisgn is, and is seen as the successor then could we say "now replaced by adobe indesign"?. Mike (T C) 00:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
We should say "superseded by Adobe InDesign." or something along those lines. — Wackymacs 07:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
That sounds a lot better, i'll change it now. Mike (T C) 17:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] sprot

sprotected temporarily. please unprotect after a few days. +sj + 02:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 03:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article has deteriorated.

It's been a while since the FAC of this article, and much has happened (most notably, the Intel switch has gone forward). I must say it has improved in some respects, but some sections are just outright bad right now (in particular the last part of the "advatages..." section, and the totally useless "Litigation" section, which is basically one pretty unenlightening sentence and then another sentence about a movie). It needs a thorough trimming and a copyedit. Anyone willing to help me? -- grm_wnr Esc 17:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've been bold and cut down about 4k of duplicated, irrelevant or overly specific information ([3] - well, in my opinion anyway). I'm sure everybody here lost a pet sentence of theirs, so please merge back anything you deem utterly essential - however, please remember that the article should be shorter, if anything, so don't go all-out. More copy-editing is still needed. -- grm_wnr Esc 18:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I applaud your edits. Personally I'd say that the "Advantages" section should die altogether. Wikipedia doesn't need to give any mention to what effectively amounts to a fanboy Mac OS vs Win32 OS argument. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-04-24 19:08Z
I made a second set of changes ([4]), and I've taken out some age-old yarns about the development which added flavor to the article but not much important information (again, feel free to reintroduce what you feel is essential). As for the "Advantages..." section, I agree that it's somewhat disagreeable, but the content needs to be mentioned somewhere. Anyway, I'm stopping this for now, and letting the changes "sink in". There's still more to be done, but maybe someone else should have a go at it now - I'm not infallible. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The "Litigation" section should be restored, and expanded. Apple vs. Microsoft was an extremely important case. If anything should be cut, it is the "Advertising" section. Who cares how many people appeared in Powerbook ads? If anyone is especially interested in the material, it can be moved to a separate article. Brian Tvedt 01:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I brought back the January version, which is a short but decent summary. -- grm_wnr Esc 08:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I would have to agree with the ads... I don't see it as exactly important. Though, I'm not sure why litigation should even be on here; it's about the Macintosh, not the company... Apple Computer has its own page. I think there should be more about clones like there used to be... I also think somewhere along the line, people started deleting rather interesting material, and began replacing it with dry information which people aren't looking for in the first place; and if they are, it should be on a separate page. Dan 02:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
The lawsuits were specifically about the Macintosh. Not about the LaserWriter, Newton, iPod, or any other products of Apple Computer. Brian Tvedt 10:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "For the first time in years"

By that I simply mean that they haven't offered a BTO option of upgrading the processor on any of their laptops since, if I'm remembering correctly, their Pismo G3s. I suppose that it's not all that pertinent to where it's placed; it should perhaps be put somewhere else, though you obviously feel it shouldn't be placed anywhere at all. Dan 02:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

It just didn't make sense in the context of the table. It read like it was the first time in years the processor was able to be upgraded to 2.16, which is something that is happening for the first time ever. I now understand what you mean by the sentence, but I still don't think it fits. Maybe adding a line about it to the main MacBook Pro article would be a better place for it? How about "It is the first Macintosh notebook with an Intel chip." or "For the first time in years the processor can be upgraded." instead? PaulC/T+ 12:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date formatting @ first <ref> tag

The eMac is a low-end desktop model originally intended for the educational market. It was sold freely to all markets from June 4, 2002 [1] to October 12, 2005,[2] but is now once again marketed only to schools. It features a built-in CRT screen and a PowerPC 745x-based G4 processor.

vs.

The eMac is a low-end desktop model originally intended for the educational market. It was sold freely to all markets from June 4, 2002[3] to October 12, 2005,[4] but is now once again marketed only to schools. It features a built-in CRT screen and a PowerPC 745x-based G4 processor.

It looks like both version have the date correctly formatted (I have a different formatting than the way it is written in the actual code) to me... Where do you see the problem? With the June 4 in the text or the 4 June in the footnote? PaulC/T+ 12:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


For me the above formats as:
The eMac is a low-end desktop model originally intended for the educational market. It was sold freely to all markets from 2002-06-04 [1] to 2005-10-12,[2] but is now once again marketed only to schools. It features a built-in CRT screen and a PowerPC 745x-based G4 processor.
vs.
The eMac is a low-end desktop model originally intended for the educational market. It was sold freely to all markets from June 4 2002[3] to 2005-10-12,[4] but is now once again marketed only to schools. It features a built-in CRT screen and a PowerPC 745x-based G4 processor.
--Ali@gwc.org.uk 13:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Interesting... it seems we have found a bug in the mediawiki software. Now to figure out how to report it. PaulC/T+ 13:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The unique advantages of the Macintosh

If someone has access, could you give a brief synopsis of the contents of the PDF related to The unique advantages of the Macintosh (pages 87-90). This is from the "Proceedings of the 13th annual ACM SIGUCCS conference on User services" and was originally published in 1985. It should have early Apple Macintosh content.

[edit] Mac then Macintosh

I think the article should be titled Apple Mac, that is how they refer to their non-classic machines. (iMAC MACbook MACbook pro eMAC Power MAC) and software says MAC and iWeb pages read made on a MAC. Also, the first sentance should read "The Mac, or Macintosh, is a line of personal computers designed, developed, manufactured, and marketed by Apple Computer." not "The Macintosh, or Mac, is a line of personal computers designed, developed, manufactured, and marketed by Apple Computer." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.235.155.139 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC).

Disagree. Macintosh is the full, correct name. The short form may be more popular these days, but it's still a short form. Graham 05:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
And furthermore:
  1. Apple Mac redirects to Apple Macintosh, so it's not as if "Apple Mac" doesn't lead to this page;
  2. the page doesn't just deal with the current Macs, it deals with Macs all the way back to the first one, and "Macintosh" was definitely used for them, as in "On January 24th, Apple Computer will introduce Macintosh. And you'll see why 1984 won't be like '1984.'" Guy Harris 06:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Apple doesn't use the word "Macintosh" at all anymore, they only use "Mac" nowadays. So face it, the name of this article is, quite simply, incorrect, at least as long as it covers both Apple's older and current computers. I suggest rename the article to "Mac (computer)" and redirect "Macintosh" there and add an explanation of the history of the words. 213.64.33.21 00:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually I personally think it should just be "Macintosh." Apple Macintosh just looks so stupid... though, Apple Mac looks worse. And it's not like there are any other Articles with the name "Macintosh"... Dan 22:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resolutions

There's absolutely 0 informations on the resolutions possible through the ages and models...

[edit] Everywhere redundant, nowhere concise

This article is crap. Shameful to the Mac. Someone (not me!) needs to take an axe to it and chop away the bloat. Much of it is more appropriate for subarticles.

No, its not "crap" or shameful, anonymous person. Lots of people put lots of time into bringing this up to its current standards. Its length is because a lot has to be said, and the best experience for the reader is when they don't have to goto other articles as much. I think its a very good article, I dislike subarticles. — Wackymacs 19:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. There's a lot to be said on any subject, and this article fails miserably at providing a well-structured overview of the Macintosh that flows naturally and reads elegantly. As such, this article is the antithesis of the Macintosh approach to design. Truly disgusting. Anonymous 198736 16:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Well what are you sitting around moaning for? Go, edit! Now! — Wackymacs 12:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
In case you didn't notice, I'm contributing. I'm telling you what needs to be fixed. Anonymous 198736 16:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
No you're not, you just keep saying its bad. Can't you suggest maybe what the new article should look like (maybe an outline of a new Table of Contents, or quote here what you think needs removing from the article??) Thanks — Wackymacs 16:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't get bent out of shape. If the editors criticizing this article cannot make any useful observation or suggestions for improvement, then their comments are more or less ignored as useless. -- uberpenguin @ 2006-07-08 18:18Z
Well said, might as well ignore this anonymous person then. — Wackymacs 18:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Your attitude towards criticism (ignore it) goes a long way towards explaining the sorry state of this article. Anonymous 198736 22:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Read what you've said so far, it was basically "this article is crap. fix it" - that is not constructive criticism. — Wackymacs 07:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you read what I've written? (1) Someone needs to chop away the bloat, (2) perhaps by moving it to subarticles. (3) Structure and flow between sections could be improved. I'm personally unwilling to invest my time and energy into this article when I know it'll succumb again to entropy in a matter of days or weeks, but if you have the time on your hands to make improvements, there's no reason you couldn't take these points to heart. No need to get defensive. Anonymous 198736 18:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

By constructive criticism, we mean citing specific examples from the article that you consider bad. For example, can you give an example of something you consider 'bloat'? I have done this already myself - see the section below, in which I have quoted a paragraph I think should be replaced. --Baryonic Being 18:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irrelevant second paragraph in lead?

The following paragraph seems irrelevant for the lead of this article:

"The original Macintosh operating system underwent many major revisions. However, the final version, Mac OS 9.2.2, still lacked many modern operating system features. In 2001, Apple introduced the new BSD Unix-based Mac OS X, featuring improved stability, true multitasking and multi-user capability, while supporting older “Classic” applications by providing a "Classic" compatibility layer. The current version of the Macintosh operating system is Mac OS X v10.4, which comes preinstalled in all new Macs, except for the Xserve which comes with Mac OS X Server. To complement the Macintosh, Apple has developed a series of digital media applications (collectively the iLife suite), three applications that are geared towards productivity (the iWork suite and FileMaker Pro), and software aimed at the creative professional market (Final Cut Studio, Aperture, Logic Pro, and Shake)."

It's talking about the history of the Mac OS, whereas the Apple Macintosh article ought to be about the computers themselves. Obviously a mention of the software is warranted, but not this much detail in the lead paragraphs, surely?

Instead, maybe a summary of the processor architectures, and a sentence or two about software? --Baryonic Being 16:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] V0.5 nomination

I've passed the article for inclusion in the release, but could we get rid of the unsourced statements in the article? I have no clue where to even begin looking, but if there's no source to a claim, you can find a source (unless it is common knowledge, or if the statement isn't even relevant, just take it out. Titoxd(?!?) 20:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mac Commercials

The mac advertisement sections seem to make Mac look like assholes. I mean, the commericals do that on their own, but I think there needs to be a large focus on anti-bias approach for articles. Actually, a LOT of this article seems to show that bias. I'd edit myself, but don't know crap about macs, sorry H2P 05:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Where's the POV? Quote it and we'll see what we can do. — Wackymacs 13:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Where is the info on the new mac ads (one with the 2 guys representing macs & PCs
Get a Mac article has that kind of info. — Wackymacs 19:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed move

If nobody objects, this page will be moved to Macintosh. The content there will be moved to Macintosh (disambiguation).--HereToHelp 17:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I support this move. — Wackymacs 17:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Support as well for basically the same reasons as I said for Talk:Windows as well. RN 18:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Disagree The word is a common word with other meanings (primarily, the raincoat). Even Windows redirects to a disambiguation page. Mdwh 18:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
That's why the other stuff would be moved to a disambiguation page. — Wackymacs 18:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I know, but it's not clear that those meanings are significantly less common (specifically the raincoat usage). Mdwh 19:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Note the rain coat has a different spelling Mackintosh and not Macintosh and the apple is also a different spelling at McIntosh. Vegaswikian 05:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Disagree Perhaps for the younger, tech-savy generation, the Mac is the computer. But for older people, it most certainly refers to the raincoat. LinaMishima 20:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I found this very interesting; that is not a common term in the United States. Here, "Macintosh" is primarily associated a variety of apple. I bet most people here don't even know "Mac", with regard to the computer, is short for "Macintosh". --Chris Griswold 23:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Note the rain coat has a different spelling Mackintosh and not Macintosh and the apple is also a different spelling at McIntosh. Vegaswikian 05:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Too many other prominent uses. --Usgnus 16:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC). --Usgnus 16:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support since Mackintosh (raincoat) and McIntosh (apple) have non-disambiguated pages. --Usgnus 16:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed move #2

Since Apple Macintosh is not the name of the product, simply Macintosh is, maybe this should be moved to Macintosh (computer) or Macintosh series (to match with Apple II series). Thoughts? — Wackymacs 20:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

From personal recollection (I had an Apple IIGS, which was state-of-the-art until the Macs came out), this was the original name of the product. Mac was the model name; Apple Macintosh was the product name. --Chris Griswold 23:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure, but Macintosh (computer) certainly seemed like a sensible redirect to be created. Done now! ;) No opinion on this move, however, decide via checking the original official name of the product. LinaMishima 00:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
In Apple's original 1984 advertising its called "Macintosh", not "Apple Macintosh". — Wackymacs 07:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
It's often just the Mac. Certainly not the Apple Mac. The name appears on the website and it does not (I can't give you links; the search URLs are wierd). This is Apple's legal page; this is the list of trademarks. Apple reserves Macintosh, not Apple Macintosh. They have a disclaimer that they also hold other trademarks, but they'd make sure to cover their main computer quite well. Besides, no one calls it the "Apple Macintosh" verbally--HereToHelp 01:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
People call it the Apple Macintosh, Macintosh Computer or Mac computer, but not Macintosh.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.205.93.88 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 16 August 2006.
I've often heard it referred to verbally as the "Apple Macintosh" or "Apple Mac", or sometimes just "Apple". I suppose in much the same way that Ford might've called one of its cars just "Escort" but everyone else called it the "Ford Escort". -- Chris (blather • contribs) 07:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
You could rename the DAB page MacIntosh or Mc Intosh or Mac Inotsh...
What are you talking about? People say "the Mac", "the Macintosh", or just "Macintosh" (which is technically the way it's suposed to be).--HereToHelp 01:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support move to Macintosh. If you look at the dab page, there are only 2 or three uses with this spelling. I think that the computer useage is clearly the main one and it can be moved to Macintosh. The question is what to do with the dab page since it has little to do with Macintosh and more to do with Mackintosh in various verisons of caps. I guess the dab page needs to be split up with most of it moved to another name. Vegaswikian 05:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be prudent to have all variations of spelling on one disambiguation page, rather spead out over about five. (we can also put that thing about Mac's grocery on to the disambiguation page).--HereToHelp 02:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
If there is consensus for one dab page with a dab pointer from all of the main articles, then that's fine. I'm not sure which way is best. Which name would you create it under? Vegaswikian 05:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Probably Macintosh (disambiguation). "Macintosh, Mackintosh, or McIntosh can be..." Things like Mackintosh (disambiguation) would redirect to this master page.--HereToHelp 10:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Macintosh (disambiguation) should not be the primary page as this is not the most common spelling of the name and is primarily a trademark. Mackintosh (disambiguation) or McIntosh would be fine.--agr 15:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay. How about McIntosh (disambiguation)?--HereToHelp 00:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess thta's okay. I'll move it.--HereToHelp 21:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] McIntosh?

You put down "named after the McIntosh apple.", you might want to fix that.

Why? That's correct! McIntosh is a type of Apple, if you didn't know.— Wackymacs 18:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

McIntosh is a type of apple. I've been spelling it wrong all these years! My mistake, thank you for correcting me.

[edit] XServe

Is the XServe officially a Macintosh? Apple seemed to make a deliberate branding point at the WWDC keynote that it isn't - declaring that the Macintosh Intel transition was complete with the introduction of the Mac Pro, then introducing the XServe as a coda. For reference, Phil Schiller at the 17:38 in the WWDC keynote webcast:

"Now the Mac transition is complete. There is one other product that you don't really think of as a Mac, but it's a a really important product in our product line, and that's XServe."

"Mac" doesn't appear in the section (in the left-hand sidebar) on the U.S. Apple Store main page, unlike the laptops in the "MacBook family" or the "Mac Desktops".
On the other hand, at the hardware level, it's somewhat like a 1U Mac Pro, and it can run Mac OS X Server, so, aside from branding and from the fact that it probably sits in a computer room and probably doesn't spend much of its time running GUI code, it's a lot like a Macintosh, just as a PowerEdge or an IBM System x or ProLiant or... server is a lot like a PC - at the hardware level, those "PC server" machines are mostly "essentially more robust versions of the modern desktop IBM PC compatible", and can run the same or similar OSes to PC's, such as Windows Server 2003 and earlier server versions of the Windows NT line of OSes, or versions of various Unix-like systems.
So, while it might not, strictly speaking, be a Macintosh, it's at least a very close cousin to a modern Macintosh, and possibly a sibling to one. Guy Harris 09:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Back in the days of the Apple Network Server, it was not considered a "Macintosh" since it did not run the MacOS. Also, I think Phil's statement about the transition being complete was a bit preemptive, as his next sentence, saying "...you don't really think of [the XServe] as a Mac..." means "You may not think of it as a Mac, but it is." Those two together, I believe make the XServe as much a Macintosh as an iBook or a Mac Pro is one. Frijole 19:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Green my Apple" campaign isn't Macintosh-specific

Greenpeace's "Green my Apple" campaign is opposed to toxic chemicals in iPods, not just Macs. Guy Harris 00:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "1999 to the present: New beginnings" needs an update

In particular, the 2005 figures should be replaced by the just-released figures from this last quarter. Thomas Ash 13:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide me link to these figures?--HereToHelp 13:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loaded words/phrases?

"Apple has a history of innovation and making bold changes that is met by a strong uptake of software upgrades.

[ . . .]

The design of the Macintosh operating system and the vigilance of Macintosh users[29] has contributed to the near-absence of the types of malware and spyware that plague Microsoft Windows users"

Both of these excerpts (especially the latter) seem rather biased. Seriously, "the vigilance of Macintosh users"? This sounds somewhat like an advertisement, and little like an encyclopedia entry. I'm aware that Macintosh has very vehement fans AND detractors, but at least some impartiality is called for here.

68.0.246.81 01:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the 2nd statement's biased... the first, not so much, as you can find plenty of those sorts of statements (where they're accurate - as I think they are here, but we can debate that) in WP, or even Brittanica. Hippo X 15:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Market Share

Just wanted to note concerns on the following paragraph from "Market share and demographics" section:

By 1997, there were more than 20 million Mac users, compared to an installed base of around 340 million Windows PCs.[13][14] Statistics from late 2003 indicate that Apple had 2.06% of the desktop share in the United States, which had increased to 2.88% by Q4 2004.[15] As of July, 2006, research firms IDC and Gartner reported that Apple's market share had increased to between 4.6% and 4.8%.[16] The actual installed base of Macintosh computers is extremely hard to determine, with numbers ranging from a conservative 3%[17] to an optimistic 16%.[18]

The part that strikes me as odd is that the first sentence would indicate a share of the installed base on the order of 5.5% in 1997, while the following sentences speak to "market share" and indicate figures of less than 3%. It seems that since the return of Jobs, Apple computers have been making huge progress in market share, and that this would be reflected as an increase in the installed base. The last sentence fails to make any distinction between worldwide installed base and United States installed base. This ought to be clarified as well.

--71.36.251.182 21:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Apple II survey

I'm conducting a survey about the Apple II -- any former users are invited to participate.

Come to User:Applephreak/survey

Applephreak 19:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spyware

"The design of the Macintosh operating system and the vigilance of Macintosh users[29] has contributed to the near-absence of the types of malware and spyware that plague Microsoft Windows users."

I always thought that it was because no-one made them, since they arn't used much by buisnesses and suchlike. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.72.50.20 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC).

Come again? Hippo X 15:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
One presumes 70.72.50.20 meant that the main reason there isn't as much malware (a term that I think includes spyware) for the Mac as for Windows is that, given that fewer personal computers run Mac OS than run Windows, releasing malware for Windows lets you get your malware on a much larger number of machines. If the Mac's market share grows, it could become a more popular platform for developers, which is, in general, a Good Thing, but it's not such a Good Thing when the developers are developing the type of software you really don't want running on your computer. Guy Harris 20:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MacBook Pro Error

The caption for the "MacBook Pro" states "The MacBook Pro is the first Macintosh notebook to use an Intel processor. It was released at Macworld 2006." The first two notebooks had about 80% Intels and on the next two it was an option. Let alone that many people, like those at Pixar changed to Intels on the newer models. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.62.181.199 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

What do you mean by "had about 80% Intels"? 100% of the MacBook Pros had Intel processors (unless you're implying Apple snuck AMD processors into some of them :-)); the Apple aluminum notebooks with PowerPC processors in them were called PowerBooks, not MacBooks. Guy Harris 20:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Four Sections

The First Four Sections had been removed. I reverted this change. Camhusmj38 01:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/c/Talk%7EMacintosh_4ef2.html"