Talk:Macintosh 128K

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Macintosh. This means that the WikiProject has identified it as an article pertaining to the Macintosh, 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 Macintosh and Apple Inc. We need all your help, so join in today!
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

What was the display resolution of the Macintosh? - Furrykef 05:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

according to the measurements of the display and resolution it seems reasonable to assume a 480x360 or 512x384 resolution, but that's just a guess --Deelkar 05:24, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
a quick google search turns out this: Macintosh 128K--Deelkar 05:30, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The built-in monitor itself displays 512×342 pixels (cf. A screenshot taken from a real M0001.)

Contents

[edit] Wrong image!

Anyone else notice that the computer pictured isn't a 128K but a 512K "Fat Mac"? Look at the info in the window on the screen, which clearly shows 512K of installed RAM. Anyone have a more accurate pic to contribute? ⇒ BRossow T/C 22:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

There's no way to tell whether that's a 512 or an upgraded 128 (or a 512e, for that matter). I think it's a pretty trivial point, and that photo is a *very* good one, but if someone comes along with one of equal quality that doesn't have the obvious reference to 512K RAM, I'd be all for the change.--chris.lawson 06:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
It would be pretty trivial to 'shop, if it really is that important. It's only a display on the monitor, after all. -- grm_wnr Esc 08:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The first Macintosh? Well, not really...

I remember those days quite well since I was living in the US at that time and owned one of the first 1,000 128Ks to come off the line, but I also seem to remember that the Apple Lisa was really the first Macintosh and was even marketed as the "Macintosh XL". The Mac 128 wasn't really the first MacIntosh since the Lisa (Macintosh XL) was around for some time before the Mac 128 appeared. Terence 15:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The Lisa wasn't marketed as the Macintosh XL until after the 128 debuted. Furthermore, the OS that ran on the 128 doesn't run on the Lisa, and vice versa.--chris.lawson 18:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger suggestion

I do believe that there needs to be some technical details on the main article page but have a more technical page for the detailed specs. --Kyle G 12:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the technical data is way to detailled to be included in the main article, so I'm against a merger. Peter S. 19:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Against mergerTrevorLSciAct 00:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that level of technical detail may be too much for Wikipedia at all. WP is an encyclopedia, not a tech manual. There are specialized wikis where that info would be more appropriate. ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ...on eBay

An original 1/1984 Macintosh is selling for "$1,984" dollars on eBay. It includes a keypad.

AppleMacReporter 02:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Trivia

I noticed while watching the movie Back to the future Part II that when Marty goes into the 80's shop there is displayed a 1984 antique computer and low and behold there is a Macintosh.

Aerialvendetta 11:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The Macintosh's place as a prop in film and TV is quite well-documented, and this individual instance isn't particularly notable. (I could rattle off at least ten more appearances of early Macs in TV or film without even looking it up.)--chris.lawson 15:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Macintosh 128K"?

This article needs to be more clear that the Macintosh became the "Macintosh 128K" only through hindsight. At the time, it was called simply "Macintosh." (I think the Macintosh 128K article title is fine, though. It's as good a way to specify the original Macintosh model as anything else.) --Steven Fisher 18:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I should specify: I know it's in the first paragraph. It's good there. :) However, the first name listed should be Macintosh not Macintosh 128K. I'm not sure how to reword this or I'd do it myself. --Steven Fisher 18:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought the original Macintosh and Macintosh 128k were the same. AppleMacReporter 17:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You didn't read the first paragraph of the article. Potatoswatter 03:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Changing the title name is easy to do using the "move" tab. However, you cannot rename the page to something which already exists as does "Macintosh". While on some level I agree the title should simply read "Macintosh" and "Macintosh 128K" should be a redirect page, given that "Macintosh" already exists as a broader category, I would accept the page titled as-is with the excellent first paragraph delineating the name history. The only other option is to create a disambiguation page for Macintosh which I think would be a mistake. Woodwynlane 03:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
There is macintosh (disambiguation) with such gems as the name for a raincoat. I added a phrase clarifying the 128k's presence on that page. Potatoswatter 05:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Credits

This article is vague about this, and I think it's noteworthy to mention. Which of the original Macs had the signatures on them?

  • Macintosh
  • Macintosh 128K (post-512K production)
  • Macintosh 512K
  • Macintosh Plus

Thank you! --Evil Eccentric 22:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

To be accurate, the signature mold persisted through the introduction of the SE, possibly even the SE 30, with some additions and omissions due to case changes, architecture and participants. Some say they made a reappearance in the Classic series. However, I can only testify to seeing them in my SE. There does not seem to be any concrete evidence or documentation to support when and on which models the signatures were included past the Mac Plus and early SEs (much less changed), so it's best to crack your Mac open and see for your self. FYI, this applies specifically to the Compact Macintosh only as different signatures were also included in other Macs as well.--Woodwynlane 18:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Software Entry Multiplan & Excel

I changed the second paragraph under SOFTWARE discussing the name change following the introduction of the 512K to better fit in this section. However, I question whether that information belongs under software at all. My change involved moving the first paragraph references to Microsoft Multiplan which was never available for the Macintosh, but rather became Excel which debuted on the Mac and required a minimum of 512K (in fact it was long overdue when released, most likely because Microsoft couldn't make it work on the 128K). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodwynlane (talk • contribs) 17:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] System & Finder Software

I'm going to add the System & Finder info under Software section to provide a historical framework and link to the Mac OS for discussion. However, I think this should follow suit for all other Macintosh pages in that the Mac Specs box should detail the OS range which a particular Mac can run, or the OS it debuted with, or the first and last OS, while the article can expand on the details. This is important information to maintain since it is contested around the internet (including Apple). So a collective focal point like Wiki would be invaluable for folks still using this hardware. --Woodwynlane 17:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jerry Sienfeld's Mac

I thought that on the show Sienfeld there was a mac 128k. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.162.162.142 (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)