Talk:Macintosh/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Talk archives for Macintosh (current talk page)
<< 1	< Archive 2	Archive 3	Archive 4 >	4 >>

Contents 1 Main Image 2 Minor Quibbles 3 Uniqueness in the Industry 4 Apple Macintosh (and possession) 5 Calling Macs "Apples" 6 Macs and TVs & Movies 7 Overlinking 8 Images: preventing weird formatting vs. keeping things lively 9 Deletion of certain pictures 10 Caption error 11 ideas for shortening intro? 12 Grammar 13 Periced Penis 14 This probably isn't the appropiate venue to gripe about this, but... 15 LOCK THIS PAGE AT ONCE~ 16 What about early Mac Memory Maps? 17 Advantages, disadvantages and criticisms Section 18 Suggestions for the introductory section 18.1 Apple today 18.2 Major transitions 19 Apple MacIntosh GUI 20 Common misconceptions? 21 Is the Xserve a Macintosh? 22 Timeline quirk?

Main Image

Main image should be something like this.

http://www.geniusdv.com/weblog/archives/G5%20Mac.gif]

the old mac should be included in the history and the new version should be main.

Let's see... no it shouldn't. Dan 01:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's take today's FA, the Gettysburg Address. Do they have pictures of nice legible typed documents? No, they have the originals, as written by Lincoln himself. I wouldn't mind having having an image of the best screen and best tower together...but let's use the 128k (or 512k, there is some debate over that.)--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 13:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Minor Quibbles

I'd just do some of this, but it's protected right now, so I'll list it here...

Apple heavily touts its releases with large special events and release-day events

This wording sounds redundant to me. I'd suggest something more along the lines of "Apple heavily touts each new release with large special events and flamboyant marketing", or somesuch.

Well, no, because "flamboyant" would give the impression that Apple itself is flaming, when in fact it is only Steve Jobs who is. Dan 01:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Uniqueness in the Industry

The article currently states:

A significant difference between Macintosh computers and competitors' models (personal computers or PCs that run Microsoft Windows, Unix or Linux operating systems), is that Apple facilitates all aspects of its hardware, and creates its own OS; this is unique in the industry.

This needs to either be clarified in terms of what is meant, or removed if that cannot be determined. I'm curious about what definition of "unique in the industry" could possibly make this universally true. Sun is arguable, since although they _maintain_ their own OS (and have for years), they arguably did not create it ex nihilo originally; a similary argument could be applied to IBM. DEC is another matter, however, and is probably the canonical example of the kind of top-to-bottom single-vendor integrated hardware and software environment the article is talking about, much moreso than Apple. (Apple doesn't even manufacture their own CPUs...) DEC is of decreasing relevance these days, but if the current state of affairs is what the article is talking about, then Sun and IBM both clearly qualify, since their OSes are just as much their own product as OS X is for Apple. So what *is* that sentence supposed to be talking about? Clarification (at least) is needed. -- Jonadab, 2006 Feb 09

No, not really. DEC is defunct... and was never geared towards the consumer mainstream. And Sun? Are you kidding? They're even less mainstream than DEC was. It says Apple FACILITATES, it doesn't make any mention of manufacturing their processors.

Maybe this could be amended to "unique in the personal computing industry."

Until Jonadab mentioned DEC, I forgot that they even existed. --Tachikoma 01:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Which definition of "personal computer" are we using? Since Macs are being included, I was assuming the older, more technical definition (any computer small enough, cheap enough, and easy enough on the power grid and cooling requirements that a researcher can have his own at home). If we go with the modern, consumer-oriented definition, most folks wouldn't consider a Mac to be a PC, because (among other things) it doesn't work with standard off-the-shelf components and doesn't run the same OS as a standard PC. I still think the wording needs clarification, to indicate more precisely what is meant. And I know what "facilitates" means, but DEC was always more thoroughgoing in general than Apple in terms of designing and facilitating and integrating their own everything, not just CPUs (with their own instruction set that DEC designed) but their own shape of network connector, the VT line of terminals that everything since emulates, and the whole works start to finish. And if DEC is defunct, then we're talking about the current state of affairs, and so then we need to clarify why Sun and IBM are not part of the industry, because Solaris and AIX are as much their creations (respectively) as OS X is Apple's. --Jonadab

I can't speak for other people, but I was thinking of the personal computer in the sense of what people (not just researchers) would use in their homes for web browsing, word processing, spreadsheet and other uses. When seen in that context, companies like Sun aren't even on the radar map of consumers. --Tachikoma 23:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I definitely think the paragraph needs changing, especially if there's ambiguity in the terminology. How about changing it to this:

The Apple Macintosh is governed by a "vertical integration" model, in that Apple facilitates all aspects of its hardware, and creates its own operating system, a model
also used in gaming platforms. The original IBM PC was conceived as a vertically integrated platform but in a key visionary decision,
Microsoft was able to retain the rights to its software.

Shouldn't this part:

The Windows OS is manufactured by Microsoft; Unix and Linux are distributed by many different companies and individuals; PC hardware is manufactured
by dozens of other parties. This is known as a "horizontal integration" model

be removed altogether? Isn't it irrelevant to the Apple Macintosh?

As it stands, the paragraph makes it sound like IBM-compatible PCs are the Macs' only competitors. But Sun compete with Apple in the server space, and Sun also make workstations to go with their servers, in the same way that the Power Mac would be considered a workstation for an Xserve-driven server environment. Sun are analogous to Apple in the vertical integration model, so it's not unique. --Baryonic Being 21:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Good point re: the server market. --Tachikoma 21:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

To be quite honest, it looked a whole hell of a lot better before Apple was a featured article, and we had a slew of changes... it was just fine before we started talking about "IBM-Compatables," and "vertical integration." Personally, I think it's wholly irrelevant- as well as boring. I'm also not sure why we're using "IBM-compatable-" if it's not an obsolete term, it certainly should be. Dan 01:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Apple Macintosh (and possession)

The Apple Style Guide for 2006 should be consulted, specifically:

Don’t use a trademarked name in the possessive form.

Correct: Learn more about iBook features.

Incorrect: Learn more about iBook’s features.

So, since Apple is trademarked, it should not be used with an apostrophe. That document gets pretty in-depth and nowhere does it mention the term "Apple Macintosh"... perhaps the article should be just "Macintosh"? (However, lets try to stick to the possession discussion...) Paul^C/_T+ 09:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

We can't rename this Macintosh because that is a disambiguation name. The only other name could be Macintosh (personal computer) or something but I think Apple Macintosh is just fine. We don't have to go with these guidelines, seems awkward. — Wackymacs 10:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The name for this page is fine; "Apple" isn't possesive. If it was "Apples Macintosh", then we'd have a problem.--HereToHelp (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You know, I haven't thought about that for a long time, but when I first came to the page, I was a little bewildered by the title. Dan 18:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't understand why you would be bewildered by 'Apple Macintosh' as a title. :-/ — Wackymacs 18:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The way you call these computers has elvolved, too. In the 1984 commercial, it says "...Apple will introduce 'Macintosh'." Not the Macintosh. Now...it could be here, or at Macintosh (computer), Macintosh computers, The Macintosh, or Macintoshes. So...it's a mess.--HereToHelp (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

ah, sorry... I had a feeling that last sentence would screw things up. I don't actually think the title of the article should be changed (although I agree with Dan)-I was getting at the discussion of calling the computer an "Apple Power Mac G5" (see below discussion) and how that wasn't correct according to the above resource. Sorry for the confusion. Paul^C/_T+ 17:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Calling Macs "Apples"

Can we get some consensus on this? Some people keep insisting that calling a Mac an Apple is in error. However since Macintosh is only a product line within Apple this should not be the case. Search for any of their machines on Yahoo, Google etc... and you get hits on their main apple.com site referring to the machines as Apple Power Mac G5 etc... Gateman1997 20:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what I got was when I googled for "Power Mac G5" was the Power Mac page on the Apple Web site, which has a title "Apple - Power Mac G5", but the "Apple - " is presumably just an indication that this is the Apple Web site, not necessarily an indication that it's an "Apple Power Mac G5"; the page doesn't itself speak of an "Apple Power Mac G5".

On the other hand, it does refer to an "Apple Cinema HD Display".

On the third hand, nowhere does Apple call Macs "Apples", so just "Apple" isn't an official name for a Macintosh. It's equivalent to calling an Inspiron or a Dell Inspiron a "Dell"; yes, if you have an Inspiron, you do have a Dell, dude, but a "Dell" could be an Inspiron, or a Dimension, or an Axim, or a Dell printer, or.... Thus, an "Apple" could be a Macintosh, or an iPod, or....

So, if somebody asks you what kind of computer you have, you could arguably indicate that you have a Mac (or, if XServes aren't considered "Macintoshes", an XServe) by saying you have an "Apple", just as you could arguably indicate that you have an Inspiron or a Dimension or a ... by saying you have a "Dell". On the other hand, saying "I'm going to the Apple Store to buy an Apple", although not redundant (you can buy third-party products there), doesn't indicate whether you're going to be buying a computer or not (you could be buying an iPod). Guy Harris 20:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. "Apples" is wrong since it's not official. Mushroom 20:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

When I say "wrong" i don't mean that people shouldn't use it. I mean that this article shouldn't make people think that it's an official name for Macs. Mushroom 21:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, if you want my 2 cents...I don't think there's any need to say calling a Mac an "Apple" is an error. It's common knowledge people will sometimes refer to a product by the manufacturer name. So in what sense is it an error? The only sense I can understand it being wrong is that Apple may say they don't like that. But Apple is not the judge of how the English language is used. On the other hand, I can't really recommend adding the sentence under contention as it doesn't really add anything to the article. As you say, some people will refer to the machines as "Apples" simply because that is the manufacturer. You could go through Wikipedia and take any product, e.g. a Porsche 911, and add a sentence saying "People often refer to the 911 as a 'Porsche'". What would that really add? --Chan-Ho (Talk) 21:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the 'Porsche' analogy - 'Apple Macintosh' is no more incorrect than the title 'Porsche 911' is on that article. MFNickster 05:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Then maybe we could just remove the whole sentence. Mushroom 21:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should wait a bit more. I would be for removing it per my previous response. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 21:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Apple Style Guide says on pages 175 and 176 that the official names for Apple's computers don't include "Apple", but the official names for the displays do include "Apple", so "Apple Cinema Display" is apparently not an argument in favor of "Apple Macintosh".

But, frankly, at this point, I'd say the "remove the whole sentence" argument is the one that sways me. Guy Harris 21:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Chan-Ho that the statement "the terms 'Mac' and 'Apple' are often used interchangeably" doesn't add anything to the article if it were true. But I don't even think it's true--I never hear anyone referring to Macs as "Apples". So if left in, I think the word "often" would have to be changed to "sometimes", but I vote for Mushroom's idea of just removing "the whole sentence." DylanW 21:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Concur. The whole sentence is more confusion than help. Apple is often used as an adjective, as in an Apple computer, an Apple Mac, an Apple XServe or whatever, but I've not come across it being used on its own, as you would a Mac stc. Answering a query as to what kind of computer you have with "Apple" implies it's an adjective for the computer, and so is OK. Quickly types this on Apple iBook, ....dave souza 21:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments to those talking about whether "Apple" is an official name for a Mac, or whether a Power Mac G5 is referred to as an "Apple Power Mac G5": the sentence at issue wasn't claiming that "Apple" is an official name of the Mac, or that the name "Apple Mac" is used — it was claiming that in people's general usage, "the terms 'Mac' and 'Apple' are often used interchangeably". Just to get this discussion more focussed on the actual sentence. Which I already voted for removal for the reasons given two comments above. DylanW 22:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

So would everyone say that just plain removal of the sentence is the best idea. I must say I agree with it too. Even if Apple computer itself considers calling them "Apples" to be wrong it doesn't necessarily track that it is in error in common usage as society isn't dominated by Apple's Style guide.Gateman1997 00:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No, but apparently up until now their website and this page was. Yes, they're Apple Cinema Displays.. but that's one hundred percent different. "Apple Cinema Display" is the literal name of the product. "Apple Macintosh" is not. And isn't the whole idea of wikipedia to inform, not to simply look neat? You will never see a Mac that say "Apple Power Macintosh;" I have a few of them sitting right in front me me now, and the only words on them are "Power Macintosh G3," and "PowerPC, with the old Apple symbol."

My problem with the whole thing, is that, in many ways, "PC" is to Dell, Sony, Toshiba, eMachines, Compaq etc., as "Apple" is to the Macintosh line. Do you see what I'm trying to say? I'm going to try reverting this one last time, and if, after review what has just been said, you still don't agree, I'll leave it at that after you remove it. I'll try to be specific. Fair? Dan 23:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

• See I don't think PC and Apple to their respective lines is a good way to look at it. Apple is to Mac what Ford is to F-150 would be my example. Apple is the sole maker of Macintosh computers currently and other then the 2 years they allowed clones, Apple always has been the sole maker. This is a case of Company/Product line. For instance it wouldn't be incorrect to call a Suburban a Chevrolet, as it is a Chevy product. So too calling a Mac an Apple is not incorrect as it is an Apple product. Granted it's not an Apple II, but it is an Apple computer, just one of the Macintosh product line.Gateman1997 18:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I know what you mean. And I guess I'll just leave it at that, but it can be looked at either way. Dan 18:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Macs and TVs & Movies

You know what I always wonder...why is that, when you watch TV shows and movies, you always see people using Macs? Of course, later on when Dell came into the spotlight you saw more of those as product placements, but still Macs seem quite ubiquitous. Weren't PCs easier to program (as in making those for screenshots and what not) than Macs back then, especially since they weren't running the linux based OS? therearenospoons 18:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

A lot of directors/producers and actors already use Macs - it always seems a logical to choice to use them as well because of their futuristic and modern design compared to the majority of PCs, such as Dells. — Wackymacs 18:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

...although Apple might also work harder at getting product placement in movies and TV than various PC makers. (In fact, the "product placement" article specifically mentions Apple as a company doing a lot of product placement.)

(Oh, and in response to something in the original question - most of the Macs in TV and movies probably aren't running Yellow Dog Linux or some other Linux distribution, they're probably running Mac OS X, so they're not running a Linux-based OS. :-)) Guy Harris 19:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I remember this software application (pre os x) that would allow the director to control exactly what would happen to the computer on screen and the actor could just randomly type on the keys and the correct sequence would happen on screen. This software was much more developed for Macs than PCs and because of this more Macs were featured in films. I specifically remember hearing about this software being used in the movie The Net (film). Paul^C/_T+ 20:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

My family gets this furnature catalog where all the computers are Macs. They look cooler.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yep... they're more aesthetically pleasing, and it's true that Macs are usually what is around. Though, in most movies you will see Macs running Mac OS 9 or earlier, simply because the transition to OS X was slow.. and because most movies were made before OS X :D

The weird thing is that you'll see completely proprietary interfaces (oftentimes) on these macs, with programs I've never seen or heard of before.. but with no distinguishing features which I can see in order to find them online. I've always wondered whether or not they're customized programs (mostly nonfunctional) or if they're highly-specific application-oriented type apps... any thoughts? P.S. ... what about the Mac apps (pre OS X) you see in movies doing scientific research? Those you know have to be legit, but what are they?! Dan 07:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Overlinking

I'll cut right to the chase: this page is MASSIVELY overlinked. I spent quite a bit of time this afternoon removing duplicate links and making significant corrections to grammar, usage, and punctuation, only to have my edits reverted by Angelic Wraith. I direct everyone involved in editing this article to the Manual of Style (links) page and ask that you simply step back, take a look at the entry, and realize how very much of the text consists of links. I am going to revert once back to my previous edit as I fear many important grammatical and other inarguable fixes were lost in the last edit, and I ask that before anyone begins a revert war that the topic be hashed out here. My changes go directly toward meeting the requirements set forth in the Manual of Style and detract in no way from the content of the page. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 00:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Angelic Wraith, please don't revert edits like this - we are trying to go with the manual of style guidelines by not overlinking. I agree, this page is massively overlinked. — Wackymacs 12:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have noticed the same problems. Agree with Wackymacs.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Images: preventing weird formatting vs. keeping things lively

This is meant to help solve a dispute between me and Brossow. He says that having images alligned left ruins the alignment on the headers. I say having all images alligned right dulls the article. There are many articles with this problem and no one has complained. How does having the headers set to the left with the text pushed over towards the center negatively affect usability?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 13:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there are several things that are wrong with your statement.

1. You yourself refer to this as a "problem." Problems on Wikipedia, by definition, ought to be fixed.
2. Saying that "no one has complained" about this, given the tens of thousands of other articles on Wikipedia, is undoubtedly wrong. I've fixed several articles where this problem has occurred and no one has complained until now. Maybe you haven't seen it discussed, but it has happened.
3. Pushing body text to the right doesn't affect usability. Having main header text pushed to the right looks, quite frankly, like no one gave a damn. (And FWIW, the word I meant to use was "readability," not "usability," although both are somewhat apropos.)
4. In my opinion, and I am absolutely certain that it would be the strong consensus opinion on Wikipedia in general, when the question comes down to "preventing wierd [sic] formatting vs. keeping things lively," the obvious choice is to prevent the weird formatting.

The purpose of Wikipedia is to present information in a straightforward manner, not to entertain. You want to "keep things lively" if you're hosting a Christmas party. In an encyclopedia article, you want consistency. Can you imagine if illustrated print dictionaries and encyclopedias were laid out with pictures randomly strewn about, pushing around the headings for entries unpredictably?

Remember that different browsers, different computers, and different screen resolutions will cause Wikipedia entries to display differently for different users. On a smaller screen, for example, the text may be cramped enough such that the left-aligned images don't interfere with the headers. On my 1280x1024 display, however, it is a noticeable problem and the left-aligned pics make the article less readable ... and, ironically, less aesthetically pleasing.

⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 14:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I know that. Perhaps my visual aid and help me acertain what you're problem with the article is: where the header and text are pushed right by the image or only the text, with the header remaining left?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 14:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I personally think that the headings should always be left-justified for consistency's sake.

I don't believe in principle that the images need to be consistently left- or right-justified. To refer back to HereToHelp's example, would it be possible to just add some white space to make sure that the headings never appear in the middle of the page or are orphaned (see 1990-1998 Growth and decline) from the rest of the section text? Perhaps it would be OK to have a header to the right of an image as long as there is some white space just preceding them.

I'm new here, so I don't know how easily such formatting can be changed. I also know that the appearance may change a lot depending on choice of browser, size of window, etc. --Tachikoma 15:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Adding whitespace is undesirable for the same reason that left-aligned images are a problem: it won't look the same in every configuration. For some it would be unnoticeable, just looking "nice"; for others (those with smaller browser windows) it would create large sections of white space. Good thought, but unfortunately not a good solution. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 15:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that left-aligned images cause unpredictable behavior. If everyone in the world were to simply agree to use my preferred browser, platform, and screen resolution, the issue would be moot. Seeing as that's infinitely improbable, we then have to look at how to make the page consistent for all, or at least as many as reasonably possible, users. Here's a page I threw together to quickly illustrate the issue as I see it. You can easily see that changing nothing more than window size can dramatically affect the way the page is displayed. Add different browsers, platforms, fonts, and countless other user-configurable options into the mix and I hope you can see where the only reasonable way to ensure that the page flows smoothly and is maximally readable for everyone is to keep images aligned to the right. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 15:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I see...it's no specific thing but rather a slew of unpredictable things. What I want to know is how does this hinder readability? So what if the headers move in and out? The images aligned at different sides keep things from being boring and monotonous. Here is a list of featured articles that have the images aligned on both sides:

• Hydrochloric acid
• Turquoise
• Dinosaur
• Kibbutz
• Butter
• Cheese
• Supply and demand
• Glass
• Exploding whale
• Microsoft
• Central processing unit

Admittedly, I did come across many that were all aligned right. Still, this is not a policy or even guideline. Unless I see some ArbCom ruling, there's no official position on this. It's really style and there's nothing wrong with the headers not being perfectlt aligned.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it was just a poor selection, but I see problems with many of your examples, Featured Article or not. (Being a Featured Article doesn't mean it's perfect -- check the Ford Mustang page, which was both a Featured Article and had the cleanup tag simultaneously until I finally removed the cleanup tag myself, having been largely responsible for bringing the article back to FA quality. And yes, there are two left-aligned images on that page. HOWEVER, both are followed by a significant amount of text such that the issue described here wouldn't occur at any currently available display resolution.)

• On the Hydrochloric acid page, the left-aligned images are virtually impossible to avoid because of the large infobox on the right.
• On the Turquoise, Exploding whale, Butter, and Central processing unit pages, the left-aligned images are followed by a significant amount of text such that header wrapping isn't an issue.
• I think the Dinosaur page is in need of improvement. Ditto Cheese and Microsoft. So is Kibbutz, which is considerably worse.
• On the Supply and demand page, the images are inserted inline as images, not as thumbnails, and as such do not create a wrapping problem.
• In the Glass article, I don't particularly care for the layout, but the only way for them to fit two thumbnails within one section was to use both left- and right-aligned thumbs in the same section. Unavoidable, unlike in the Apple Macintosh article.

I don't think we need an ArbCom ruling to tell us what looks right. Common sense should hold sway. At the risk of repeating myself or sounding condescending, which is unintentional but possibly unavoidable, the primary goal here is professional-quality presentation, not entertainment value.

⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 15:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should be entertaining. We should just try not to be boring.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 18:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Not at the expense of readability. Ultimately this is, after all, an encyclopedia. And frankly, if we're relying on the alignment of a picture to be the deciding factor between whether this article is boring or not then there are more serious issues with the article than image alignment. Did you ever stop reading an article on Wikipedia because there weren't enough left-aligned pics? I haven't, but I have been turned off of an article because of poor layout (and sometimes have gone out of my way to improve it, as with the Mustang artcile cited earlier — I'm a Chevy guy!)

My advice is to let the content of the article, and not the eye candy, be the main attraction. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 20:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

But left aligned images don't hurt readability. What is does do is help break up long paragraphs of pose. Is there really anything wrong with not having all the headers perfectly aligned?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there's something wrong with that. It looks sloppy and it makes it more difficult to scan down the page to find a particular section. Looking for a section heading in the horizontal middle of a page is not at all intuitive. For me, left-aligned images do impair readability, and judging by the only other feedback on the subject thus far, I'm not the only one who thinks so. Did you look at the screenshots I posted? Did they really mean nothing to you? Look at the last two in particular — these are entirely possible, even probable, examples of the problem that left-aligned images can cause. I hesitate to even throw out my credentials, as anyone on the Internet can make up anything he wants, but I actually had college coursework in layout and design as part of my undergraduate studies. I really do know what I'm talking about. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 22:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Brossow is a moron and his changes are simply detrimental to the page.

You're entitled to your opinion, Angelic Wraith. However, I'll direct you to this policy and also ask you to sign future replies. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 01:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I find myself going back and forth regarding this topic. If this were a fixed, printed medium, I would be all for putting images on the left or right as needed. At the same time, I really do prefer having headers on the left side...or at least as far left as possible, depending on whatever other elements are on the page. It's not a case of "my way or the highway", more like how I like both chocolate and vanilla ice cream, but I just prefer vanilla that much more.

The problem here is that this isn't a fixed medium, and if one person finds floating headers that much of a problem, then there are likely others who just haven't been heard from.

I would suggest trying to align images in the midst of (rather than at the beginning of) large bodies of text, so as to avoid having orphaned headers as shown in [User: HereToHelp|HereToHelp]'s illustration. I don't know how well this would work for all of the browsers/setups out there, though.

This being a wiki, I suppose at some point we must simply agree to disagree.

--Tachikoma 02:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I find long, uninterrupted blocks of text to be much more detrimental to readability than any of the headers or images discussed here. Even the introductory paragraph to this article strikes me as too much unrelieved text. --Tachikoma 02:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm with you 100% about the opening being too long, though I'm not sure what you're considering a paragraph as far as the intro is concerned. The intro to this article is FAR too long and goes into far too much detail. IMHO, everything beyond the first actual paragraph should be moved to the relevant section of the article (e.g. "History," "Software," etc.) Once this current furor over image placement dies down, I may address that need myself. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 02:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This page was fine long before you got here... it's been up for years, we've all been editing it for a long time. It's just a tad vexing when someone just all of a sudden comes out of nowhere and begins making sweeping (and in your case, often poorly thought-out) edits. I can't figure out why the heck you're removing some of the links, and simplifying some links which should NOT be simplified.

Oh, right.. and if anyone should be discussing things before making changes, it should be you. Dan 05:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No, the page was not "fine" long before I got here. It was, and continues to be, filled with errors; I'll continue to work to improve it. As for the link removal, see comments in the appropriate section above regarding overlinking. As for me asking permission before making needed changes, refer to this guideline. (Big difference between that and wholesale reversion, as you did of my careful edits.) I could go on, but it seems pointless at the moment. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 06:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

For me the page looks fine as it is using Safari on Mac OS X, apart from the grammatical errors and the overlinking - A lot of the wording could be improved as well. Besides all that, I think having all the images on one side ruins the layout, and thus makes the article worse. I'm not voting for 'preventing weird formatting' or 'keeping things lively' because neither are a good argument from my point of view. — Wackymacs 11:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above: there's nothing wrong with left aligned images. Remember that you said log periods of text look bad? Long periods of right aligned pictures do, too.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I never said long blocks of text look bad. What I intended to indicate in a reply above was that I agree 100% that the intro to this article is too long. If readers are so dense that they can't make it through a few lines of text without seeing a pretty picture, I sincerely believe they will gain nothing from the article anyway, no matter the layout. This is a reference work, not light reading.

I feel like I'm beating my head against a wall here, but I'll repeat: just because it "looks fine" on your particular screen using your particular browser in no way means that it looks fine for everyone. (See my examples posted yesterday for painfully obvious illustrations of the issue.) Wackywacs, you honestly don't think that preventing weird formatting is a legitimate concern? Really? Read what I wrote previously: let the reader find value in the content. Make the prose attractive and don't let the superficial "fluff" in the article (and really, that's what virtually all of the pictures amount to) impede the flow of the content, which is what happens when left-aligned images shift section headings around.

With nothing but the utmost respect due anyone, does anyone else here besides me have credentials in print and electronic publishing? ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 14:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel as if everyone disagrees with you. I agree that the vast majority of the content is in the text, but the images a necessary in presenting that info. They're not "fluff".Having the pictures varied and aligned on different sides does not hinder the content. It's all there anyway.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 14:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel that everyone disagrees with me. In fact, until Wackymacs chimed in this morning, you were in the minority. Left-aligned pictures that displace main section headings disrupt the flow of content and make that content more difficult to locate and read. (I have no problem with left-aligned images that do not potentially or actually interfere with section headings; let's be clear on this point.) Do you have layout and design training? I do. As for the value of the images, some of them support the textual content, yes. Many do not. I don't know how you can look at the last picture on the page I posted above and claim there's nothing wrong with it. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 14:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

One more question for the sake of discussion: if the text were manipulated to, say, a tiny 6-point size, would you say that that was acceptable? If not, why not? The content is "all there anyway," to use your words. Sure, it's more difficult to read, but it's technically there. And if you don't think this is acceptable, then why is another formatting choice that also makes the article less accessible okay? ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 14:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

To your first point: I'll remove the USB for the sake of compromise (I like it the least anyway). To your second: we must distinguish between changing the shape and changing the size. Although either way can be at the sacrifice of readability (we wouldn't want to have the text spiraling or upside down), the images are a relatively minor change. They're fine. Really.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 15:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I've done as an attempt at compromise: I brought back the USB image and I selected several pictures to left-align. However, I reduced the thumbnail size from 250px to 200px to minimize the chance of negative impact on the overall page flow with regard to section headings. The only one I'm not happy with but am willing to leave for the time being is the PowerBook 150 pic, which is taller than I'd like and has the greatest chance of impacting on the next section heading at higher screen resolutions. If someone could provide a PB150 pic that was wider than it was tall, it would help a LOT. Is this an acceptable compromise? If so, I'd like to establish a guideline for this article that standardizes picture size, alignment, and placement to avoid future problems.:

• Right-aligned thumbnails should be 250px wide.
• Left-aligned thumnbails should be 200px wide.
• Left-aligned thumbnails are not to be used in situations where they may reasonably be expected to displace or otherwise interfere with the left-alignment of section headings.

⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 16:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed the PB150 "problem" myself by uploading a new version of the pic with wider L/R margins added. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 16:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the Apple Macintosh article looks quite satisfactory right now, with the notable exception of the long introductory text. I'm the one who said that long sections of unrelieved text make an article harder to read.

The introduction would be much better if it were shorter, and if the Mac history content were merged with the text that follows the table of contents.

One thing that I think should not be changed is how the three pictures of the Mac OS GUI evolution are stacked together on the right side. Keeping those pictures together establishes that the Macintosh interface is a continuum of changes rather than a history of abrupt changes, and that the three pictures are about the same subject. Of course, Mac OS X is rather different from the classic interface.

If I might reiterate my suggestion that most images should be placed within sizeable blocks of text, in order to avoid the whole issue of pushing around headers altogether? --Tachikoma 18:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

BRossow, I know just because the article looks fine in Safari under OS X doesn't mean it will look fine in every browser. The article looks fine in FireFox for me under OS X and Windows XP. I use the standard 1024x768 resolution that most people use, so the article should look fine for everyone - Internet Explorer differs the layout a tiny bit, but it doesn't render it as it should anyway. I'm glad to see that improvements are being made to the article, is anyone working on shortening the lead? If not I'll try help in that area. — Wackymacs 18:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I think assuming that everyone is browsing at 1024x768 is shortsighted. I'm browsing at 1280x1024 on a 17" LCD, and I think that's becoming more the norm. 17" and 19" LCDs are cheap nowadays and fast becoming the standard. Designing a page around a single resolution is not good practice, to say the least. Having said that, I think we've about got things resolved with this issue and can move on to the really important stuff: content. If no one has gotten around to revamping the intro by this evening, I'll take a stab at it, but today is my wife's birthday and the Super Bowl, so I'm stepping away from the computer for most of the day. :-) ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 19:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree with that.. I only use 1280x800 on my laptop... at home I use 1280x1024-1600x1200 on a 19" CRT... I truly hate 10x07 >_< Dan 00:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Considering that iBooks STILL only have 1024 x 768 (bah!), and that this page is likely to be of interest to Apple users, requiring anything larger to make best use of the page is shortsighted. Good design means being as inclusive as possible, so if that means those who have the luxury of large screens sacrificing something to include those who don't, so be it. I have never understood why any website requires any particular resolution - HTML doesn't fix elements to an absolute position unless you go to a lot of trouble to force it to. Graham 01:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I fear you may have misunderstood. I don't believe anyone here was suggesting that we optimize for larger screen sizes; quite the opposite. I'm strongly in favor of making the page readable for ALL resolutions. Higher resolutions were brought up because the more horizontal space is available for text display, the greater the chances of problems with text wrapping undesirably around images. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 02:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of certain pictures

I agree that the iMac shouldn't have been in the place it was, but I definitely don't think it should be removed from the article altogether.. in fact (though I do realize there is a small picture of it with Jobs introducing it way back in '97), I believe it should be rather prominent- at least in one part of the article. Why? Well I think its history speaks for itself, doesn't it? It was by far their hottest-selling item when it was introduced, and nearly single-handedly dug Apple out of the enormous hole it (and by "it," I mean "John Sculley") had dug itself. Plus there's the nostalgia factor :D

Oh, and another thing. They seem to have deleted the page which had been heretofore describing a logicboard, and turned it into a simple redirection to motherboard. What the hell. I feel we should do something about this... any thoughts? Dan 00:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

If you have a better suggestion for placement of the iMac picture, by all means bring it back if you can do so without conflicting with what we've accomplished today. That section of the article is already crowded with pictures, but if you think you can squeeze it in, go for it.  :-) ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 02:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

What I meant was, we'd probably need another section on the iMac, like there is on the Mac 128K. Sound reasonable? Dan 04:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds very reasonable. The iMac represented a big turning point for Apple in terms of affordability, design, and adoption/push of industry standards such as USB. (USB awas around before the iMac, but virtually no one knew what it was and peripherals were virtually nonexistent.) The iMac also marked the death of the floppy disk drive on the Mac platform. I think it merits its own section, certainly. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 18:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Or the beginning of the death of the floppy, at least... Beige PowerMac G3s were still shipping at the time.. but I think it marked the beginning of the end of the floppy for all platforms. :)

I wouldn't say no one knew about USB... I certainly did (hell, it was even on an old P166 my dad brought home from work...) and it was definitely very useful for peripherals such as, say.. mice :D

Affordability.. yeah... I suppose, $1,299 was way lower than any of the PowerMacs (though, it should be noted that the PowerMac G3 was far cheaper than the PowerPC 604x-based PowerMacs it replaced..

P.S., I'm still hoping for page which can clear up the period inside the parenthesis mark ~~

Dan 18:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

As I thought it would make you happy, I already moved appropriate periods outside of the right parenthesis. However, I'm not here to teach you English or do your research. ;-) ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 20:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are ~_~. Um.. no but seriously, if you don't, I'm going to continue to write articles (not this one) with the period outside the parenthesis mark Dan 02:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do so with my blessing. I've seen several respectable sites indicate that it's acceptable or even correct, so please don't let me stand in your way. And as I said previously, I already changed all such instances in this article as a goodwill gesture. :-) ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 04:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Eh? No ya didn't! You just added periods, turning one sentence into two on several occasions. See, this is why you have me so damn confusing >_< Does this mean I can change all sentences (like this.) back to a format (like this). in the Apple Macintosh article? I personally feel it's more aesthetically pleasing. But then I'm a bit eccentric sometimes... and it's 2:02 in the morning, and my roommate's cell is going off... which has nothing to do with anything, but late at night I can't think of anything to say at all.. hey I'm still a teenager :D (Note to self: You're fucking retarded. Just shutup now). Dan 07:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Umm ... yes, I most certainly did. I count four instances of ")." on the page. I did split some sentences into two for aesthetics. In instances where an entire sentence is contained within parentheses, the punctuation also belongs within the parentheses; on this there is no ambiguity. (For example, the punctuation in this sentence is correct.) ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 22:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Which would explain why I always used ")." ... I've never understood the point of self-contained sentences in parentheses. What the hell are they trying to clarify >_< I always try to incorporate it into the sentence, and if I can't, I find you can write the next sentence in such a way that you do not need parentheses. As for switching to )., I can't find them, but then I don't think Wikipedia displays absolutely every change you make in the "compare." Dan 03:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Just using the "Find" command in Firefox works for me. Check the 2nd sentence of the 4th paragraph in the 1985-89 section, for example. :-) ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 04:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm shocked! :) So this means I get my way about absolutely everything from now on, right? ;-)

Caption error

There is an error in the caption for the very first photo at the top of the page. The computer is the second Macintosh, the 512k "Fat Mac." If you look at the enlarged version, the screen of the Macintosh is showing the "about this Macintosh" window, which clearly states that the installed memory is 512k. anonymous

Good eye! I corrected the captions on the photo itself and in Wikimedia Commons. Not sure what to do with the caption in the article itself as I hate to lose a good image like this one. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 22:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Well actually, while you're likely correct, it could be a Mac 128K. Burell Smith made it so you could solder RAM chips to the Mac, getting up to 512KB of RAM... I added this a month or so ago, it's in the article:

Though there were no memory slots, it was expandable to 512KB of RAM by means of soldering sixteen 256-Kbit RAM chips in place of the factory-installed chips. This was thanks to Burrell Smith's clever work: he routed a few extra lines on the PC board, making the 256-Kbit chips on the horizon useable in the Mac. This meant adventurous Mac users could upgrade their "Mac 128K" to 512KB of RAM without buying a whole new machine. Steve Jobs was utterly against this at the time (because he didn't want people "mucking around inside the Mac" and because he wanted them to buy the 512K Mac after it came out), but Burrell slipped it in quickly and no one told Jobs, to the benefit of Macintosh owners.

Maybe it was a 128K mac modified to use 512KB RAM by an "adventurous Mac user;" thus it would be a 512K mac :) Ya know know, you know? Umm.. yeah, anyway, I'll just photoshop it if you want lol... if you want I'll even do it on Photoshop 7 for Mac :P Dan 03:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

But will you do it running System 4.1?  ;-) ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 04:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a Mac expert, but look at this page where the original image came from. You'll see that there's also a photo of the back of this machine, which shows it to be the 128K model I think (someone who really knows about Macs please confirm this!).--Pharos 21:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't make out anything ram wise on the back, but I see 512k on the front. The site says it's 128k (look at the URL).--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say anything specific, but their image is clearly different from our image of the back of a 512K model. My only concern is the possiblity that these are two different machines, as this page says there are two in their collection. I also notice that the image we are using at its source has "pmac" in the URL; could that have any significance? Anyway, I guess we could just take them at their word on the identication.--Pharos 22:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. It means it's a Mac 128K... from Europe. The "real" Mac 128K was M0001. Dan 00:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

ideas for shortening intro?

Hello, I just tried to shorten the intro text myself, and I immediately drew back from the attempt after being confused by all the formatting codes. Maybe I'll get back to it later, or maybe someone else can do the job.

Anyway, it seems to me that there are 5 paragraphs in the introductory text, preceding the table of contents. I thought that paragraphs 2-4 could be folded into the main article text. Paragraph 5 says much the same thing as the content below the "Advantages, disadvantages and criticisms" header. Maybe the paragraph should be deleted entirely? --Tachikoma 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Be specific. Copy the WORDS (not code, let other people worry about that), and make edits and then post them here. The coding can take a few days to get used to... probably shorter if you know HTML... which I don't. It's very simple though.

Thanks for the suggestion. I took your advice and ignored all the code relating to the pictures. All I've done so far is move the first paragraph (the one about the Apple II's continuation) just past the introduction of the Mac. I've also changed some text about the altered 1984 ad with the iPod, and about the "company's driving focus". It's late, so I don't think I'll do anything more for now. --Tachikoma 08:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. I meant post them HERE (discussion) before making any radical changes. I think you have the right idea, but I feel that by putting things out of order, you didn't take into account the effect it would have on the adjacent paragraphs... I kept a couple of your shortening ideas, but I had to revert it for now because it didn't flow well, and without paragraph two where it was, paragraph three seems to come out of nowhere. I realize this is probably frustrating. I think it is for all of us ;-)

To be honest, though, I don't see what's wrong with the intro.. it doesn't seem that long to me. Why does it seem long to you? Maybe though, to start, you should try cutting down on wordiness (while maintaining a tidy/well-written piece), and make things more succinct. Dan 15:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It was never my intent to leave my edited version of the article as a final version. As you said, the editing made the subsequent paragraphs seem to come out of nowhere. I had planned on eliminating those paragraphs or incorporating them into the body text.

The introduction to this article strikes me as long because it contains a lot of material that is repeated in the main part of the text. Beyond a certain point, an introduction that long ceases to be purely an introduction. I see no need to give a mini-history of the operating system company in the opening paragraphs.

The current introduction as it stands has the following paragraphs:

1. Definition of the Macintosh as the first commercially successful GUI-based computer.

2. Discussion of the eclipse of the Apple II, Apple III and Lisa models.

3. Mac markets, plus non-Mac products

4. Transition from Mac OS 9.2.2 to Mac OS X, some Apple software

5. Vertical integration of Mac production, shift to Intel CPUs

I think that the content of paragraph 2 works better if moved just above the header "1985-1989: The desktop publishing era". That places it right after the introduction of the Mac.

The line about the Mac being the company's only line of personal computers could be folded into the transplanted content of paragraph 2. Alternatively, brief mention could be made in the intro about how Macs supplanted the Apple II family.

Paragraph 4: This can be shorted to say how the operating system has continued to evolve, and that the current version is Mac OS 10.4 Tiger. The software content also can be shortened.

Paragraph 5's content is very similar to the text that follows the "Advantages, disadvantages and criticisms", and perhaps need not be included at all.

I also think that the description of the 1984 commercial was better left expanded as I had left it. --Tachikoma 21:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It looked to me like you had removed most of it, not expanded it (1984 commercial).

Anyway, my point is that it has to be pretty decent.. it was a featured article. Either way, while those things are true (OS 9.2.2-OS X, Apple software, macs, etc), they're just mentioned, not really got to in-depth, because it's just an introduction. An intro should cover much of what will be discussed in-depth, shouldn't it?

As I understand it, the main Article page really isn't for experimenting. Perhaps you should try saving them as Word documents and playing with them.

Concerning the 1984 commercial content, I had indeed expanded it. In my version, I had split the whole paragraph into two separate paragraphs, and then expanded the description of the 1984 commercial. I don't believe I removed anything at all, merely rearranged.

Here is the current text:

The Macintosh was hinted at on January 22, 1984, with the now-famous 1984 Super Bowl commercial directed by Ridley Scott. The Mac itself was officially introduced and went on sale on January 24, 1984 for a retail price of $2,495, bundled with two useful programs designed to show off its interface: MacWrite and MacPaint. Although the Mac garnered an immediate, enthusiastic following, it was too radical for some. Because the machine was entirely designed around the GUI, existing text-mode and command-driven programs had to be redesigned and rewritten; this was a challenging undertaking that many software developers shied away from, and resulted in an initial lack of software for the new system. Many users, accustomed to the arcane world of command lines, labeled the Mac a mere "toy." In 2004, twenty years later, Apple irked some long-time Mac users by rerunning the 1984 commercial on its website, with an Apple iPod digitally inserted, worn by the woman, played by Anya Major.

It seems clunky to me to start the paragraph talking about the 1984 commercial, then veer off to discussion about the bundled software, the changes that the GUI required from software developers, etc., then finally get back to the 1984 commercial in its retooled form. It's especially noticeable that the actress' name doesn't get mentioned until the very end.

If I remember correctly, my version was something like this:

The Macintosh was hinted at on January 22, 1984, with the now-famous 1984 Super Bowl commercial directed by Ridley Scott. This commercial showed a woman, played by Anya Major, who defiantly throws a sledgehammer at a Big Brother-like video screen. This was symbolic of Apple challenging the text-based computers that dominated the market at the time. In 2004, on the twentieth anniversary of the Macintosh's introduction, Apple would unintentionally irk some long-time Mac users by showing an altered version of the 1984 commercial on its website, with an Apple iPod digitally inserted onto the shorts of the woman.

The Mac itself was officially introduced and went on sale on January 24, 1984 for a retail price of $2,495, bundled with two useful programs designed to show off its interface: MacWrite and MacPaint. Although the Mac garnered an immediate, enthusiastic following, it was too radical for some. Because the machine was entirely designed around the GUI, existing text-mode and command-driven programs had to be redesigned and rewritten; this was a challenging undertaking that many software developers shied away from, and resulted in an initial lack of software for the new system. Many users, accustomed to the arcane world of command lines, labeled the Mac a mere "toy."

As for the introduction, you do have a good idea about working on it offline.

My point about the intro length is that the current introduction does more exposition than what I think it really should. Put another way, an introduction that long risks making the random visitor want to tune out and move on rather than continue reading. Put still another way, there are articles on Wikipedia that are shorter than the Apple Macintosh introduction.

I'm not going to worry about the intro for now. It's really taking more time than it's worth at the moment. --Tachikoma 04:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Grammar

From the lead: "The Macintosh, or Mac, is a line of personal computers designed, developed, manufactured, and marketed by Apple Computer that run the Macintosh operating system, or Mac OS." I believe that the "run" should be "runs"; strike out the extraneous phrases (like the genitives), and you're left with: "The Macintosh is a line that run the Macintosh operating system." Clearly, the "run" should be "runs"; it's referring to "line", which is singular. Thus, "run" should be "runs" to be gramatically correct. I'm going to revert for now, because I'm pretty confident that this is gramatically correct. Please let me know if my grammar isn't up to scratch. :-) Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, I won't change it for now, but I still think that "runs" is gramatically correct. Hopefully we can get this resolved before 00:01 UTC. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The base sentence is this: "The Macintosh is a line." The object of the of following line is "personal computers designed, developed, manufactured, and marketed by Apple Computer that run the Macintosh operating system, or Mac OS." Take my word for it: this is correct. (And if you don't believe me, go here, enter "591460" as the file number, and check my credentials as a licensed English teacher. :-) ) The real grammatical problem here is "The Macintosh is a line." The Macintosh is a single computer, not a "line." That's something that actually merits some attention. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 23:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

"The Macintosh line is..."?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 23:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Right, but doesn't The Macintosh simply refer to the entire line? Things get complicated rather quickly when it comes to English grammer, colloquialisms and technical terms, as well as idioms.. O_O :)

Anyway... I never paid any real attention to all that specialized crap like "intransitive verb," or "object of the prepositional predicate super noun squared," but I would assume that "line" implies many computers.. as in "macs.." so it should be run. I wish I could remember why I came to this page... Dan 00:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Line is singular and so would take a singular verb. It is, of course, a moot point. :-)

I'll take a stab at revising the opening. If anyone doesn't like it, they can bite me revert it. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 00:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

How about "The term 'Apple Macintosh' refers to a line of personal computers that run the Macintosh operating system or Mac OS, and are designed, developed, manufactured, and marketed by Apple Computer."?

All this talk may be moot by the time this is posted. --Tachikoma 00:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Some admin should go change the templated Main Page version. I'll implement it in the article.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 00:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to revert to my edit. As I said in my edit note, not all Macs run the Mac OS! ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 00:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

How do you mean? Like, some Macs use Linux.. or like the Xserve doesn't run the Mac OS. Is the Xserve even a Mac? If it's the former, then at least say "ship with the Mac OS."

Some older Macs shipped with A/UX. Mass purchases of Xserves may ship with no OS installed (just a guess.) Why does this need to be mentioned in the very first sentence of the article, anyway? ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 01:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It probably doesn't need to be mentioned. Currently, it does - the opening sentence is

The Macintosh, or Mac, is a line of personal computers designed, developed, manufactured, and marketed by Apple Computer that run the Macintosh operating system, or Mac OS.

so, if it shouldn't be mentioned, it should be changed. Guy Harris 01:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The current opening sentence reads: "The Macintosh, or Mac, line of personal computers is designed, developed, manufactured, and marketed by Apple Computer." It seems my changes were lost in the spate of vandalism, but I restored it a few minutes ago. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 01:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the replies and the discussion! Sorry that I couldn't participate, I had to log off yesterday. I think the current version is fine now. If you think that the version on the main page needs to be fixed, let me know and I'll fix it for you, although it will be off in less than an hour. Thanks again! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Periced Penis

Can we get rid of that? Especially sicne its the fetured article. I would but i dont know where it is in the code:(

Keeperoftheseal 01:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. If someone taught me, it would be lovly

• Although I may be wrong, if you cannot find a way to change something on a page and you are desperate to change it (i.e. it is a featured article) then you can revert it. Delta 01:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

What on Earth are you talking about? I definitely never noticed it... and I definitely would have, since I visit this stupid page every day. Link me? Dan 07:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This probably isn't the appropiate venue to gripe about this, but...

Every single version of this page going back several weeks has the infamous picture of the pierced penis on it. By the time an article reaches Featured Article status, it should be able to sit in public view without need for editing for a measly twenty-four hours. I stand behind my moaning and whining in the past, that featured articles should be protected.

TJSwoboda 01:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it was done, and about time, too. Vandalism of these pages that "exemplify our very best work" just makes Wikipedia look bad.

--MacPrince 01:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. It's just plain stupid not to... it's like announcing the members in a witness protection program or something.

LOCK THIS PAGE AT ONCE~

Worked great while it lasted... :/

TJSwoboda 01:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

What about early Mac Memory Maps?

Where can I find a memory map for the early series of Mac computers (before 1993)?

The main article would be improved if a paragraph was added, dealing with the memory maps that were in place, and how developers had to sign contracts of nondisclosure just to get a chance to look at it. That's probably not the case anymore, seeing as how it's mostly outmoded technology, but discussing the actual graphics cards available for the Mac, and where or how they were addressed in memory, would help people understand what made the early Mac tick. At the least, mention it in passing, and then put a link in a footnote. Curious people will take it from there.

The original Inside Macintosh series, of which I have a complete copy, provides this. However, it should go into a separate article, since it's far too technical for a general article on the Mac. Graham 05:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Graham, but I think it would be great to if made a separate article; especially if it were palpaple for someone with a solid foundation of knowledge about computers, but perhaps not something quite this technical (for example, as it is now, I'm not entirely sure what you are referring to when you say "memory maps;" it seems it could mean a few things, but if you made it unambiguous that would be cool. Umm.. i gotta go my room is starting to smell like baby powder for absolutely no apparent reason...

Well, if it were permissible, maybe someone could upload a digitized version of Inside Macintosh to WikiSources? But making an extra article about the way the Mac worked, with special attention given to the memory map, is a really good idea.

The information in Inside Macintosh is spread over a number of different chapters - there isn't a single "memory map" diagram for example. However, all of the information is there, and I'd be happy to dig through and collate it. Once all the info is collected into one place, someone who is handy with graphics could easily turn it into a diagram. I'm pretty sure we'd be on safe ground with publishing this information after all this time, it's in the public domain (I never had to sign any NDA to get Inside Macintosh!) and I think it would make an interesting technical article for those who really want to go into this much detail. Perhaps we can create a work-in-progress at Apple Macintosh/Technical details - we can always move it to a better title later once it's into some sort of shape. Graham 04:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I have made a start at the above link. There are more details that could be put into the memory map - which register bits control what for example, but it's hard to know what sort of detail level is appropriate. Perhaps interested parties can make comments on the talk page there. Graham 06:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Advantages, disadvantages and criticisms Section

Going back to the 1980s and early 90s.. One thing that should be added.. Apple's proprietary technology caused their peripherals to cost more than similar items produced for the PC. For example, if you wanted to buy a printer for your Apple, it would cost $100 more (or something like that) just because it was for an Apple.

Back then, IBM tried to sue other companies that were "cloning" their machines. They lost. This led to a huge drop in the price of IBM computers. It also meant that Apple lost the market to the cheaper IBM compatibles. You could buy an IBM compatible computer from any number of different makers. Once these cheaper machines became more common, many new companies sprung up to produce different parts for IBM computers (Graphics cards, hard drives, etc..). Contrast this with Apple who wanted to produce everything themselves.

Apple's products were more like the "establishment" than their marketing would admit. Many people resented the proprietary system. They were seen as the people who wanted to sell you a machine that only their widgets would work with.

There's an interesting quote of something Bill Gates said to Steve Jobs(?). He said it was not about who produced better software (or a computer for that matter). It was about gaining enough market share to be the dominant system. (so that everyone used the same type of systems and they were compatible) The improvements to IBM computers would happen in time anyways.

To this day, there are still people who would not buy an Apple computer because of the way they did business back then. Their computers at times were a little more advanced, but their business practices were not. Accountable Government 04:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This section could also do with some line breaks. After reading most of the way through the article, when confronted with a great block of text, it's eye-glazing time. --Paul 04:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions for the introductory section

Don't much feel like editing the featured article when I've just awoken, so...

Suggest replacing "dropped early on" with "dropped quickly"; one could argue that the Apple II line was dropped early on as well, since it's been 13 years.

The acronym "OS" is never defined, so when it is encountered in the vertical integration section, it's a bit jarring (despite popping up earlier in "MacOS").

Very minor nitpick: Mac computers can run Linux and UNIX too, so that distinction between Macs and PCs is misleading.

"still in production...to this day" is redundant.

Good work, all.

JohnRDaily 11:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is great, but to keep the opening short and sweet in summary style, I moved the paragraph about the IIc family into the body of the article, as well as the information about products after those lines were dropped. Please take a look and see if that lines up chronologically and logically. Jokestress 14:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Since Angelic Wraith reverted this without comment, here's what I feel does not belong in the intro:

Following the Macintosh's introduction, Apple continued production and development of its Apple II family, the company's original product line and main source of income at the time. (The Apple III and Apple Lisa lines failed and consequently were dropped early on.) Despite soaring popularity and continued potential for technological advancement in the Apple II series, it was overshadowed for years and mostly ignored by Apple management while the company focused on the Macintosh, to the point the Apple II faded into obscurity and eventual discontinuation in 1993.

Since then, the company's only line of personal computers has been the Macintosh, although from time to time it has experimented with new products outside the personal computer market, such as the Newton, Pippin, and the iPod.

This isn't really relevant to the Macintosh per se and makes the intro unneccsarily long. Jokestress 20:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jokestress that the intro should be shorter. Here's an example of how it could be broken up to allow for the intro proper to be digested in a much smaller bite. JohnRDaily 01:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

If anyone knows how to place this in a box (frame?), please feel free to do so so that the transition to the next section is more readily identified. -JohnRDaily 01:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

---

The Macintosh, or Mac, line of personal computers is designed, developed, manufactured, and marketed by Apple Computer. Named after the McIntosh apple, the original Macintosh was released on January 24, 1984. It was the first commercially successful personal computer to use a graphical user interface (GUI) and mouse instead of the then-standard command line interface.

The Macintosh was preceded at Apple by three other personal computers: the Apple II (the company's original product line and main source of income at the time of the release of the Mac), the Apple III and Apple Lisa. Neither of the latter were notably successful, and the Apple II line was discontinued in 1993.

Apple today

Since the end of the Apple II family, the company's only line of personal computers has been the Macintosh, although from time to time it has experimented with new products outside the personal computer market, such as the Newton, Pippin, and the iPod. The current range of Macintoshes varies from the "budget" Mac mini desktop to the mid-range server Xserve. Macintosh systems are primarily targeted towards the home, education, and creative professional markets; more recently, the Xserve G5 server has enabled Apple to gain entry to the corporate market.

The current version of the operating system is Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger, which is sold preinstalled in all Macs. (The Xserve comes with Mac OS X Server.) To complement the Macintosh, Apple has developed a series of digital media applications (collectively the iLife suite), two applications that are geared towards productivity (the iWork suite), and software aimed at the creative professional market, including Final Cut Pro, Shake, and Aperture.

Apple facilitates all aspects of its hardware, and creates its own operating system. This distinguishes it from other computer manufacturers, who rely on Microsoft and others to provide the operating system, and who exert less control over the design of third-party hardware. This "vertical integration" model is unique in the mainstream computing industry but very common in gaming platforms.

Major transitions

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, multitasking and multi-user capability, while supporting older "Classic" applications by providing a "Classic" compatibility layer.

The Macintosh debuted in 1984 with a Motorola MC68000 processor. In 1993, the Macintosh switched to IBM PowerPC processors, and soon after, Motorola itself did as well. Motorola and IBM-based PowerPCs are still in production in Macintosh computers to this day. Beginning with the introduction of the iMac Core Duo and MacBook Pro in January 2006, the Macintosh has begun using processors produced by Intel, which is also the producer of many processors used in Microsoft Windows-based PCs. See Apple Intel transition.

---

Apple MacIntosh GUI

The Mac Intosh was not the first commercial computer using the GUI. In your article on the Lisa , the Apple Lisa is correctly named as the first commercially sold computer with a GUI. I can remember this very well since I was one of the few Lisa owners in Germany. When Production was suspended by Apple i got the offer from Apple to have my Lisa brought up to the McIntosh standard..

By the way all people who contribute Apple with the development of GUI and mouse are wrong. This happened at PARC (Xerox Company)

It says the first commercially SUCCESSFUL computer. Not the first. I don't think PARC was even commercial.. in fact it wasn't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Angelic Wraith (talk • contribs) 15:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC).

Xerox PARC's early GUI machines such as the Alto weren't commercial; however, Xerox's System Development Division did produce the Xerox Star in 1981, with a processor (the Dandelion) originally developed at PARC, and with the software written in the Mesa language, developed at PARC, running on top of the Pilot operating system, developed at PARC.

The Star wasn't commercially successful, however. In addition, Xerox also didn't support third-party software for it, so it wasn't really a general-purpose computer. It was also not a personal computer; it was intended to be connected to a network, and wasn't something anybody was likely to just buy and put next to their desk.

Workstations from Apollo Computers also came out before the Lisa; although you could write your own software for them, they also weren't personal computers, as they were also networked and not something you'd be likely to buy and put next to your desk - they were engineering workstations. Workstations from Sun also preceded the Lisa.

I presume there was at least some third-party software available for the Lisa, given the reference to a development environment on the article about it, so you could perhaps argue that the Lisa was the first personal general-purpose computer with a GUI (unless there was another one that preceded it).

But, as far as I know, it was the first successful personal computer with a GUI, even if other machines, either not general-purpose, not successful in the marketplace, or not really personal computers, preceded it. Guy Harris 22:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It's also well worth taking a look at History of the GUI article. It's a common misconception that Apple got everything from PARC - Apple actually contributed hugely to the GUI as we know it today. The entire Finder interface and drag/drop paradigm was Apple's, as was the menu bar, the automatic refresh of windows, draggable icons, and many other GUI elements that we take for granted now but were not present in PARC's work. Graham 04:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The funny thing though, is that none of us really know the truth of that. I mean, yeah, I've heard it, I sort of believe it, but how do we know how much is true? After all, it is Steve we're talking about. Plus, I mean they paid them, so who knows? :P Ok, granted I trust Andy Hertzfeld's account... heh heh, Hertz... like in computers :) Dan 05:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You can get a pretty good idea of what Xerox was doing if you download a copy of Squeak. It's a direct lineal descendant of Smalltalk-80, complete with an emulation mode. Apple bought themselves a look at the general idea of a mouse-driven GUI and then created a very different spin on it. What Apple invented was the desktop metaphor, the pull-down menu, the single-button interface, that sort of thing. And the underpinnings of the system had almost nothing in common with Smalltalk -- ST80 was an object-oriented virtual machine, while the original MacOS was a strictly procedural system built around Pascal data structures and 68000 assembler code. The closest you get in modern terms might be Java, or going back a ways a LISP machine or 8-bit BASIC. Haikupoet 05:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Common misconceptions?

Is there a case for a section heading "Common misconceptions"? For example, the oft-repeated but false assertion that Macs don't support multi-button mice, etc. I'm sure there are plenty of others. Of course, what we DONT want is a place for advocacy of any kind - just the facts. Thoughts? Graham 04:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If you can cite these common misconceptions then yes. Mike _{(T C)} 04:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Realistically, citing these things is difficult. Most Mac users are aware of what the misconceptions are, so they are easily stated. However, if you want each one backed up with a reliable citation, that isn't likely to happen, given the nature of the thing. Being a misconception, few people are willing to stand by a statement such as "Macs can't use a right-click" and publish that somewhere at a link that will remain stable. I expect there are many forums where you can find such statements, but I doubt if anyone is going to think that's a reliable citation. I still think the section would be worthwhile, since in itself if becomes a simple way to correct those misconceptions - for example, just the other day someone (over at Apple, the moron) wrote something to the effect that Macs don't accept right-clicks. Or maybe it's not Wikipedia's job to do this, however neutrally and dispassionately? Graham 04:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The wiki isn't really the place for it, and if it isn't verifiable it will be deleted is all (not by me but someone). Where did you read the right click comment? Because that would be verification enough (right clicks on his mighty mouse). Mike _{(T C)} 05:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not just about right-clicks, though that is a very common one. That's my point - you can read such ignorant remarks most days of the week on e.g. Slashdot, but I don't think that really counts as a citation. Most Mac users will be familiar with the misconceptions they have to deal with every day (prices too high, can't right-click, can't share files with Windows, takes >20 minutes to copy a 17M file, there are no games, and so on). The difficulty to my mind isn't getting a sizable number of wikipedians to agree that these ARE common misconceptions that we all recognise, but in presenting them without advocacy. Graham 05:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Though you both have good points, the myths can be cited. Look [1], [2], [3], [4] (humorous, but mentions the same ones) and [5] from Apple, for good measure. Also importantly, the facts that debunk them can (and must) be cited. So, I'm in favor for a myths/misconceptions section. I know of one other similar section in Wikipedia, Breakdancing#Myths. Arru 10:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

As I said if you can cite the myths, and the the facts that debunk them then go for it, I just know if we put a section of myths up, without anything to back them up as myths (or if it looks like we pulled them outta our ass) they will not survive. Thanks for looking up some citations though, I will write the section up =). Mike _{(T C)} 19:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wherever it goes, I'd like to see a link added to the megahertz Myth which also clarifies the background to the shift from PPC to Intel Core, a corrective to the usual misinformation about this being a poke in the eye for mac zealots who've been dissing x86....dave souza, talk 20:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Graham... a lot of these so-called misconceptions are incredibly stupid. Of course, that's usually because they're presented by Apple as "myths." But nevertheless..

Anyway, I've heard a lot of kids saying there are no games for macs, but it's always hard to tell if they're being pricks, or just dumb.. :) Dan 01:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a half truth, there are games for macs, there isnt the selection there is on the PC (and sometimes this is a good thing, cuts out all the crappy ones lol). 99% of the main popular games are available for mac tho, the sims, warcraft 3 and World of Warcraft etc. I always get confused when I look at your username btw dan, it already reads like Angela Wraith, then when I look your signature is male lol sorry funny but true! Mike _{(T C)} 02:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

>_< It says "Angelic" not Angela. I tried to do Angelic Warrior but it was already taken. And yeah, I agree, many of the games not available for Mac are crap. Dan 02:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Is the Xserve a Macintosh?

This point has been mentioned briefly in the discussions here, and I think we should answer the question. The Xserve product page [6], does not specifically call it a Mac - it uses the word Mac only to describe the clients or as part of Mac OS X Server. --Baryonic Being 14:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think its a mac, it runs Mac OSX, and IMO this would be the defining factor. Mike _{(T C)} 19:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Is an IBM eServer xSeries or a Dell PowerEdge an "IBM PC compatible""? :-) That's arguably a similar question. Dell doesn't call them "PC's", but they call their other "IBM PC compatible" machines "desktops" and "notebooks" on their Web site, they don't call them "PC's". I suppose a server probably isn't a "personal computer", so they're not "PC's" in that sense, but, these days, people think "IBM PC compatible", even if it's in a rack in the server room, when they think "PC".

Apple doesn't use "Mac" in the name of the XServe, but they don't use it in "iBook", either, although that might change to "MacBook" when Intel versions come out. So, from a marketing point of view, one might be able to make a stronger case for an XServe not being a Mac than for an "IBM PC compatible" server not being a "PC". However, from a technical point of view, I'd say they're similar, in that the "personal computer" (Mac/PC) and server (XServe/{eServer xSeries, PowerEdge, etc.}) models have similar hardware architectures and run similar OSes (client and server versions of OS X/{Windows, Linux, etc.}). Note, of course, that one could run the server versions of those OSes on a machine not marketed as a server.

I'd be inclined to include the XServe as a model of Macintosh, just as the "IBM PC compatible" page notes that there are servers with that hardware architecture. Guy Harris 21:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the Xserve can be considered a Macintosh as much as the Workgroup Servers were. These were replaced by the "Macintosh Server" series, but the Apple Workgroup Server article mentions that the Apple Network Servers ran AIX, and therefore "don't qualify as Macintoshes." MFNickster 03:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think what makes the Networks servers NotMac is the fact that they can't run any version of MacOS. People have tweaked them in an attempt to get them to, but I think they only get as far as the Happy Mac, or thereabouts. Haikupoet 16:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The XServe article says that they run Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger server edition. The Apple Workgroup Servers were an older line, long since discontinued. --Tachikoma 16:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that the XServe is a mac because a) it was built by apple b) it runs mac OSX there is a problem with simply looking at what O/S it runs since you can hack a "IBM clone" to run OSX, but wouldnt call it a mac, would you? Mike _{(T C)} 20:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Since 'Macintosh' and 'Mac' are trademarked by Apple as computer product names, the IBM clone could never be a Mac no matter what you stuck on it. The Xserve is an Apple product, though. But it doesn't exactly fit the mold of "a computer for the rest of us," does it? :) MFNickster 04:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess the topic is somewhat vexing. To address a few issues.. they definitely are NOT going to change the iBook to "MacBook.." since if nothing else, that would be naming two different LINES of products the same name (yes, this is quite different from naming PowerBook G3s from different eras "PowerBook G3"); but mainly, my understanding (at least, what I figure) of the name MacBook is because they HAD to change it... PowerBook implies a PowerPC chip. iBook doesn't- and look at their new iMac... still called the iMac.

Um, Apple sold over 20 different models of 'PowerBook' before they put a PowerPC chip in it! MFNickster 04:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. only the Workgroup Server 95 used A/UX out of the "Workgroup Servers."

The annoyance with "what's a mac and what isn't" comes with how you define a Mac. I mean, even the Workgroup Server 95 used a Motorola 68040 CPU, and was based upon the Quadra 950 motherboard (as opposed to the 80, based upon the Quadra 800). Either way, they were made with Macintosh parts, and I would certainly assume the 95 was capable of running System 7.1-Mac OS 8.1, like the 80 and 60. The Network Servers used PowerPCs.

Anyway, how does one define a Mac? Do we let Apple do that, and if they do, do they actually have a real system of doing it? What about the Mac clones? They all ran the Mac OS (or System 7). And they all used PowerPC CPUs. Dan 04:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the guidelines for this is simple 1) It was produced by Apple, 2) It is a computer , 3) It CAN run a O/S produced by Apple. Clones are not macs, but rather mac compatable. Any ammendments, suggestions, criticisms? Mike _{(T C)} 07:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What's your reasoning, though, behind clones not being Macs, if they're made with the same damn parts? What's the difference? I mean, I have friends who've built their own Macs, and put them in a Mac case... I've had friends who've taken their existing Macs and put them in PC cases. Are neither of these macs? Is the second one a Mac, but not the first? There's a reason we need a definition with some reasoning behind it. Dan 04:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the main reason is its built by apple, if its not its a mac clone? Maybe? Mike _{(T C)} 04:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. But the real question is, am I a Macintosh? Dan 21:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

From your contributions, yes you are a Macintosh. Perhaps not a Apple Macintosh, maybe a Macintosh Apple? Mike _{(T C)} 21:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Aaahhhh crap. Does this mean I'm fruity? :( Dan 05:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Timeline quirk?

I think there is a problem with the timeline. The Power Macintosh section starts with the Power Mac then to the beige G3 and then switches from Old World to New World ROM, but the links don't match up. The BWG3 is the first machine with the New World ROM and it is quickly changed to the Power Mac G4 within the timeline. Basically the links don't match up to the text. Is this a browser issue or is this a problem that can be fixed? Paul^C/_T+ 21:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

While we're at it, do you think we could get rid of some of the misaligned verticial red lines?--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 22:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The reason they don't line up is that it's chronological. The "New World ROM" era began with the iMac, so the vertical line matches that product introduction. The "G3" models included the Beige G3 ("Old World") and the B&W G3, which was introduced in Jan. 1999, so the blue G3 series bar spans both eras and the red line on that series jogs to the right for the B&W introduction.

MFNickster 03:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the red gets "pushed" over by the products who don't line up exactly. That's what I'm upset about.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 03:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Why? Is there some reason they have to line up? The "Old World" and "New World" machines overlap chronologically, so should the divison be only at the iMac's introduction? MFNickster 04:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually.. as mentioned, I guess.. it was the iMac that started the "New World ROM" era... where the ROMs were only about 1MB (down from 4MB), and Macs load ROM into RAM. What do you mean by "the links don't match up?" That's pretty vague. I personally haven't noticed any misaligned lines, if that's what you're referring to. I'm using Firefox at 1280x800. How about you?

forgot to add my dumb signature lol.. Dan 07:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hover your mouse over the second 3 in the G3 Power Mac line, the link switches too early to the G4. I'm using Safari at around the same resolution (slightly larger). Paul^C/_T+ 07:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh christ. I looked at the source.. I thought it was a PNG (since it downloads as one if you drag it), but I guess it's just disgustingly complicated and copious code. We could always save the code, and download it as an image and modify it accordingly. Dan 07:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, I would have tried to tackle it myself, but I'm not even sure this is a problem for other people. So before I went ahead and tried to understand how the code works I wanted to make sure other people had the same problem. Also, I saw your weird double edit this morning and last night, I have no idea what happened. Weird. Paul^C/_T+ 17:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The mismatch is a "bug" (or misfeature) in EasyTimeline. The clickable area for a link is a bit larger than the actual text, and when links are too close to each other they will overlap. The b&w G3 timeline segment is too short to link it properly, but there's no way around that. -- grm_wnr Esc 16:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

So umm.. we shouldn't make it into a PNG? Dan 05:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No we shouldnt since we can more easily update the timeline in the future in the state it is in. Mike _{(T C)} 06:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, a simple image can't have the clickable links that make EasyTimelines so useful. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well they can with imagemaps, but its more trouble than its worth. Mike _{(T C)} 21:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Umm. Quite. In fact, EasyTimeline uses HTML <imagemap>: must specify an image in the first line