Talk:Macintosh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 10, 2006.
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 Inc. 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.
Article Creation and Improvement Drive Macintosh was the Article Creation and Improvement Drive for the week spanning from Sunday, 02 October 2005.

For more details, see the Article Creation and Improvement Drive history.
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] 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)
  • Some claim that Unix is fundamentally more secure than the design of Windows so even if Mac OS X got huge market share it would never host as many viruses as Windows. For one article, read here
--Jason C.K. 03:22, 6 February 2007 (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)

[edit] Featured article status

With this being a featured article I cringe at reading grammar like this: "Apple didn't use Pentium 4 or Pentium D CPUs because of there power consumption and heating. Also, it didn't use AMD CPUs because Intel's roadmap in 2005, its large factories and because it was capable to offer a complete platform (as AMD can offer after buying ATI)." (BTW, I removed this)

There are also blatant POV issues like: "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." (This fact is clearly disputed, IOW POV - The counter argument being marked share and such, and there is no proof that Mac users are any more vigilant than anyone else.)

This is a featured article people; try to not make Wikipedia look bad :-) --Anss123 16:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to fix it. That's the great thin about Wikipedia.--HereToHelp 00:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
My point is not that it needs to be fixed, but that it needs to be fixed for this to remain a featured article. POV and poor grammar is not the stuff most FAs on this site is made of.--Anss123 01:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
If you feel that the article really doesn't live up to current FA standards, you can list it at WP:FAR. If it only requires minor fixes, however, it's better to just make them yourself and move on. -- mattb @ 2006-12-19T01:46Z
I never said that I'm not willing to make those changes, but with this article having featured status I thought to give people a chance to argue down my points. There is also the problem that I know I’m a biased editor, biased away from the Mac, and that will color my perception of what is POV and original research (there seem to be a bit of that too). I would therefore prefer if someone agreed to my assessment that this article has problems.--Anss123 02:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree - even Mac users think that bad grammar is a bad thing. I've cut the reference to "the vigilance of Macintosh users" too. The marketshare counterargument is rather weak, because it doesn't explain why there is no surreptitiously-installed malware for the Mac, but add it if you feel the article needs some balance (though I think that'd just be apparent balance, and would start an edit war, so is best avoided...) Thomas Ash 11:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Implementing a root-kit is non-trivial, quite expensive actually - so targeting the Mac is simply pointless as long as spammers gets all the bots they need from the PC marked, this is, however, irrelevant for Wikipedia. Arguing that the Mac platform is more or less affected by rootkits because of <insert reason here> falls under either original research or POV, less you find a source that a large number people agree to (because this is very much a contested issue). BTW, the whole 'rootkit' situation is overrated by the media (surprised?). The majority of BOTs are spread through social engineering (i.e. they send you an executable and ask you to execute it.) The Mac platform is no more 'safe' from these attacks, but where the Mac has an advantage is that users are by default logged in with low privileges, this means that it is much easier to get a rootkit going on Windows (assuming the user logged in with high privileges). This, of course, does not change the fact that Mac OS X is an unstable POS that crash more than Win95 IMHE :-)
--Anss123 12:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "This fact is clearly disputed, IOW POV" If this fact is clearly disputed, please find us some appropriate, neutral sources weighing-in with the point of view that Unix and/or Mac is fundamentally engineered less-securely than Windows. "targeting the Mac is simply pointless as long as spammers gets all the bots they need from the PC" It would be major bragging rights to the writer. But it's difficult to score that win because few Mac exploits survive long (they're patched), and there are rarely any actual viruses "out in the wild" (as opposed to built in a virus-researcher's lab). MS meanwhile will try to hide that any vulnerability exists rather than fixing the bugs. There's even a known vulnerability in Vista left-over from previous versions of Windows! Read here. "Arguing that the Mac platform is more or less affected by rootkits because of <insert reason here> falls under either original research or POV, less you find a source" If it mattered to talk about rootkits in the article, it shouldn't be too hard to find a lot of material about the fundamental secure engineering of Unix. See a few links at the end of this post. "where the Mac has an advantage is that users are by default logged in with low privileges" And so you've just countered your own point, a Mac is safer from social engineering. What's more, even if you are logged-in with high-privs, unlike in Windows where when some process wants to affect your system it'll just say "Do you want to do this <insert incomprehensible 'info'>" and you can just click "ok", on a Mac it will tell you what application is requesting what privilege and require an admin username & password. Also, unlike long-time MS practice of having a freshly-installed OS default-configured with the system pretty wide-open, OS X does, for one, ship with root disabled by default, and in general locked-down. And since the average user has no interest in Unix, the command line, or root accounts, they never enable it and so it isn't available on most running Macs. Read more here and here.
--Jason C.K. 05:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Macintosh PC???

As Apple's website actually speaks of Macs and compares them to PCs, are Macs PCs? If they are, they are--but I can use a server with two Intel quad-core cpus in it and use it for personal use, so is that a PC too? Only saying because it seems Apple is marketing against PCs and for Macintoshes--and PC originated from IBM PC, making Apple different. Any thoughts? Bourgeoisdude 16:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Macs are certainly PCs. Apple marketing and users just like to avoid using that term due to the general association of "PC" with "IBM PC compatible". -- mattb @ 2007-01-18T17:00Z
I.e., a Macintosh is a Personal Computer ("a microcomputer whose price, size, and capabilities make it suitable for personal usage"), even if it's not an IBM PC compatible. Guy Harris 18:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archives updated

I've archived old discussions to a new archive page. Also, I've moved all the archives, as they were linked under Talk:Apple Macintosh instead of here. The archives now have a navigation template, making it easier to read from one page to the next. Hope folks find this helpful. -- Kesh 20:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Much too Biased

This article is very biased. It constantly talks about how great the macintosh is/was and how it is so surprising Mac's have not taken over the world. One example in particular is the article states as a fact that MS Windows' UI was written to be a copy of MacOS'. But hidden later in the article it says that Apple sued microsoft over this and lost. Clearly the first statement is subjective and the second is objective. But the first one is strongly supported in the article. Where the second statement is downplayed and even hinted that Bil Gates used dirty tactics to stop Apple's legal appeal. Now I am not a huge fan of MS or Apple but reading this article was painful because of the slant. The article should be written much more factually. All the subjectiveness of the author should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Goat (talk • contribs) 21:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

There is no "author" whose subjectiveness can be removed. Look at the history of this article and convince me that there is an author who can be credited with it.
I didn't mean that there was one person who was biased. By "author" I meant the collective group of people who contributed to the article.The Goat 20:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I.e., this is a Wiki; if you don't like the article, be bold and change it. Guy Harris 08:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I might do just that. However I am not an "expert" on the subject. Second I wanted to bring the problem to the attention of the community so that the reason behind any changes would be understood.The Goat 20:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I suspect many of the people to whose contributions you're objecting aren't "experts", either; don't let that keep you from contributing.
Also, when you make a change, put the reason behind the change in the edit summary. Guy Harris 20:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Gotta agree with you on that one. It would be more neutral to state that Apple believed Microsoft copied the UI, which led to the lawsuit. -- Kesh 23:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If something doesn't sound right to you, either re-word it to be more neutral & accurate ("believed", "alledged", etc), AND you might also want to flag it if it's a claim that ought to be substantiated, put a {{fact}} or {{verify source}} or some other tag on it in the article text. Guidelines here.
--Jason C.K. 06:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rosetta Inacuracy

"Many analysts have stated that certain high-profile programs, such as those from Adobe Systems, should not be used under Rosetta until native versions are released."

This is first unnecessary information. Information such as this should be stated on the Rosetta & OS X pages rather than the Macintosh page. Second this is incorrect information with a citation that states nothing even close to what the sentence states. Very few analysts have said that they should not be used under Rosetta, and the supplied citation says nothing about any analyst either. It just gives a list of products that haven't been released as universal applications. Creative professionals have stated that Photoshop and other graphics programs would run slower through Rosetta. The people stating not to do so are people hoping for a miracle that Apple has defied the laws of computing and found a way to translate from one processor architecture to another without a performance dip. Rosetta was designed closely with Adobe to work near-flawless with their applications. The first public test of Rosetta was done with Adobe Photoshop. I've used it on an almost daily basis on my Intel Mac without any problems. Khadgar
  • Khadgar is right...the reference has nothing to do with the claim. Was a mistake made? Or did someone make a claim and add a random reference so it would look sourced? Anyway, I'll delete the irrelevant reference, stick in a "fact" tag, and someone will either have to substantiate that claim or we'll delete that claim in a week or so.
--Jason C.K. 06:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable statement about marketing

"Macintosh systems are mainly targeted at the home, education, and creative professional markets." Perhaps most sales are in these markets (though some hard data would be nice), but is it really certain that they are "targeted" at these markets? Numberp 02:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that statement is clearly incomplete. Since the switch to Unix, Apple has also done some marketing targeting the scientific computing marketplace with two-page spreads in magazines such as New Scientist where they stressed the ease of moving existing scientific codes from big Unix servers to your Mac laptop. They also advertised specifically using the success off the University of Virginia (?) supercomputer built out of PowerMacs.
Atlant 14:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I remember the early days of the Mac and how Apple was quite aggressive in placing them in universities and pursuing the academic market before other computer hardware and software manufacturers followed suit. During my freshman year in college, the engineering college at my university installed a lab filled with dozens of Lisas, which were quickly converted to Mac XLs when the Lisa failed to pan out. These early Macs were great not so much for use in engineering work (all they had on them were MacWrite, MacDraw, MacPaint, etc.) but for the fact that I no longer needed a typewriter. I could actually write a paper for the first time, save it, edit it as often as I wanted to without running out of correction fluid and have it look professional when printed on a LaserWriter, far better and easier than similar work done on PCs at the time, no small feat in 1984! Even today, most (liberal arts) academics I know are Mac users, and the academic community gets good deals on them. If anyone finds documentation of Apple's focus on the academic market and its impact on the subsequent success of the Mac, please by all means include it! SpanishCastleMagic 02:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Neither Dell nor HP/Compaq are OEMs. Like Appple, they sub-contract out to Chinese companies like Asus. Frequently, both Dell and MacBook machines roll off the same assembly lines. The section on manufacturing here is a little naive.

[edit] Superdrive

This sentence has long confused me: "The Power Macintosh G4 with its SuperDrive introduced the first relatively affordable DVD-R drive in 2001" - so presumably with the "relatively affordable" qualifier, this wasn't the first computer to come with DVD-R as standard, in which case, I'm wondering in what sense this is innovative? Was there some dramatic breakthrough in price thanks to some innovation by Apple, or does this just mean cheaper than before? In what way did the Superdrive effect the computer industry?

There's now a reference for it [1] but that just confirms that it existed, it doesn't explain why it's notable, or provide a reference for an effect on the rest of the computer industry.

Thanks for any explanation. Mdwh 03:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual memory

First computer with virtual memory? That's disputed by the Wikipedia article for virtual memory. Mdwh 03:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The article says "first personal computer to have virtual memory", not "first computer". A claim that the Mac was the first computer to have virtual memory would, of course, be complete rubbish. Guy Harris 04:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, but it's highly misleading, and not the way I read it. At the least, it would be better to specifically state that other computers had virtual memory earlier to ensure that the reader is not misled, and that the Mac was the first ... something. "Personal computer" is a very vague classification, what definition is being used here? Also a reference that this influenced other OSs to have virtual memory would be useful - I'd have thought that introduction of virtual memory had more to do with the availibility of the necessary hardware, than a 3rd party product for the Mac. Mdwh 05:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
How is it misleading, and how could one read "first personal computer" as meaning "first computer" (absent a glitch causing the word "personal" to disappear)?
As for the definition, the definition in the Wikipedia page for personal computer might work here. Guy Harris 10:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
It's certainly not misleading, this is just Mdwh who needs to read sentences more carefully. — Wackymacs 10:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peripherals?

Should there be an article for Mac peripherals (modems, printers, tape drives, storage, et. al.)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.19.42 (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

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