Talk:MacBook Air/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

References

Don't forget to add references to all the specs. I'd wait until Apple updates their website to get them straight from them. 129.120.22.140 (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I added the tech spec's reference Wedtm (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you guys are fast. I came here to create the page but it'd already been created. lol Entbark (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct title

Due to technical limitations, the correct title should be MacBook <thintext>Air</thintext> ;) -- MacAddct  1984 (talk &#149; contribs) 18:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Photographs

Picutres are up on the apple website. Someone who knows more than I do should add them to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenchie16 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't: WP:NFCC. ed g2s • talk 19:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Those pictures are owned by Apple and not free to distribute. We really need to wait until someone takes a photo of the product themselves. -- MacAddct  1984 (talk &#149; contribs) 19:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Would the ones available here be suitable? http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/15/apple-macbook-air-first-hands-on/ tktktk (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Nope, fraid not. It needs to be a photo released into the public domain (so the easiest way is by someone who's already on Wikipedia). For examples, see the photos on the iPhone article. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 19:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Colors?

I removed the sentence about the five colors that the Air comes in...was this confirmed? [themadness] (talk)

Its someone bullshitting. Saw it in an IRC channel. jrabbit05 (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There will not be colors as of this writing. Figured I'd make that more clear. Wedtm (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Highly doubtable, considering those were the colours used for the iMac SL and the iBook. --Jrothwell (? | !) 19:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization of page: Feedback

I have reorganized some sections of the page to make it look tidier. Please give me some feedback. Thanks! Arbiteroftruth (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Nja247 has put an advert tag on the article.[1] I think that's not necessary. Even though most of the facts here come from Apple marketing materials, the article is a straightforward recitation of what's known about the computer. Thoughts? PRRfan (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

At that point a lot of things were not properly cited as required in an encyclopedia. It still needs work in my opinion, but looks less like an advert than it did. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the advert tag is not necessary. Kushalt 23:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

this article does read like an ad, and without the hype, it easily violates WP:NOT. Bytebear (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Pedion comparison

I think it's relevant to cite news reports providing context to Apple's claim of thinnest-notebook-ever, which is a large part of its notability. I propose adding this: "A thinner notebook was the 1998 Mitsubishi Pedion, which was 0.7244 inches thick.[2]". PRRfan (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention it's tremendous price! Nja247 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Toshiba Portege R200 is thinner than the Air too. And take a look at the Sharp Actius MM20 - only slightly thicker but with a removable battery, ability to swap hard drive, built-in ports and PC card. It's all about those pinstripes..... 86.17.211.191 (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I read an article (don't know where) that commented that the thinness comes with a price. No CD/DVD player. Interesting since Mac was one of the first to drop Floppy drives. Bytebear (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the Sony X505 is also thinner. I think the thinnest notebook claim should really be removed or qualified as it is blatantly not true. At the moment although it says "touted by Apple" this could still be misconstrued as factual. 58.167.241.188 (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem already solved. The system works :) 58.167.241.188 (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's relevant, but does it really have to be in the lead?--HereToHelp 02http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Main Page:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The thinness of the Air seems to be it's defining feature but as long as the lead qualifies it as being "the thinnest Macintosh notebook ever" I think the Pedion reference could be moved elsewhere. 58.167.241.188 (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Where does Apple claim that this is the thinnest notebook *ever*? The press information on their web site simply asserts that it is the thinnest notebook, obvious implication being that it's the thinnest currently shipping current-generation notebook. Comparing with a (failed) 10-year model is an interesting bit of trivia, but hardly merits highlighting in the lead. And the lead shouldn't say that Apple asserts this is the thinnest *ever* unless somebody can ref where they say that. --Psm (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't be bothered finding a source but I am pretty sure it was called "the world's thinnest notebook" in the keynote speech. I suppose you could interpret that in different ways, personally I would interpret the claim as meaning "thinnest notebook in the world" which it isn't. Just because something isn't currently in production doesn't exclude it from being part of the world. The claim shoud either be omitted or qualified as the thinnest notebook currently in production or thinnest mac notebook. Also does anyone know what ever happened to this: http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/notebook-supermodel/intel-unveils-metro-worlds-thinnest-laptop-almost-skinny-as-a-razr-263359.php

58.167.241.188 (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say that there are two factors that should allow it the title "world's thinnest notebook", firstly it is the only computer of the two which is shipping currently and until a few seconds ago there wasn't even an article on the Pedion. Secondly, and this is the real reason, the MacBook Air at it's thinnest point is about half an inch thinner than the Pedion, and the small portion that is thicker is only thicker by about 0.04 inches, as CNET said: 

"The Pedion measured 18.4 millimeters thick, which comes out to 0.7244 inch thick. Although the Air gets to 0.16 inch at the thinnest point, the Air is 0.76 inch thick at the beefiest portion, making it minutely thicker."

I know that in the UK at least if Apple were to make these claims wrongly then they could be fined and have the ad banned in the country, some people attempted this with some of the 'Get a Mac' ads but after about 6 months of 'research' on the ASA's part Apples claims were found to be true. I think they have probably researched the topic a fair bit and will have the above two reasons to flaunt. 86.16.139.140 (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed about the bloggy CNET article not commenting on the fact the MacBook Air is thinner in some respects. They only really compare the thickest point of the MacBook Air to the thickest point of the Pedion, ignoring that most of the MacBook Air is much thinner. In addition, I cannot find information that says the Pedion was ever sold outside of Japan. So the world claim, since Apple is marketing to the world, may mean something here, besides just the present. Kaomso (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. What is the point of a product company asserting "thinnest notebook every made in the history of mankind anywhere, anytime, commercial or otherwise" or some equivalent set of caveats?? Apple has indeed stretched truth past the breaking point on numerous occasions, but this is not one of them. The Air is the thinnest notebook on the market, and it's a fair claim by Apple. They are not claiming the thinnest notebook *ever*. If they could have claimed that, they would have. They didn't. It is indeed interesting to note if and when thinner notebooks have been marketed (regardless of commercial success), but the ingress of the article is hardly the place for it. And if you can't be bothered to spend the time to find a reference to refute something, then don't bother at all because you're not refuting anything. And in *any* case, the Pedion claim is dubious, since it's only at the Air's thickest end that the Pedion is minutely thinner - the majority of the Air is thinner than any point on the Pedion. --Psm (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Weight

This being an extremely portable computer whose size and thickness are important specifications, should this page not also contain information on the unit's weight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.161.164 (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The weight isn't really a selling point as it is actually quite heavy relative to competitors. But I suppose it should be added for the sake of completion. 58.167.241.188 (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's already in the article in the specs box under "dimensions".Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Explanatory sentence

The beginning of the Overview section lists a bunch of features that the MacBook Air doesn't have. This needs to be preceded by a sentence explaining why these features are mentioned at all, since these are things that it doesn't have, and you don't normally list everything that isn't there. The reason why they are mentioned is that these are features which we would expect it to have, but which were sacrificed in order to make it smaller and lighter. This is an insightful comparison with other computers. It's a trade off of size versus features.75.168.31.51 (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Processor

How did intel reduced the processor die for 60%. The only possible way is to significantly reduce cache. Can someone conform cache sizes of the processors used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.78.217.176 (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The pin package that the die sits on is what was shrunk. The die is just a standard low voltage 65nm Merom Intel Core 2 Duo. See http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=3201 for more info. --Nbritton (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Misc

Can someone add the resolution of the iSight camera? (76.210.63.170 (talk) 12:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC))

Size of Graphics Memory?

Developer notes says 64 MB, Technical Specifications says 114 MB. What gives? DJ Tricky (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The Tech Specs say Intel GMA X3100 graphics processor with 144MB of DDR2 SDRAM shared with main memory. Published sources are in agreement with the 144 number. Thus, the Developer Notes appear to contain an erratum. I am sure this will be fixed soon. Kaomso (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Portege R200 not thinner

I removed the clause about the Toshiba Portege R200 being thinner than the MA because this Toshiba spec sheet says it's .77 inches thick. PRRfan (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Was about to make the same edit. I also checked the spec pages for the other R200 submodels R200-S2032, R200-S214 and R200-S234 and all have the same dimensions listed (9.9mm 0.30" thinnest to 19.8 mm 0.77" thickest). It is really close though, only 0.4 mm / 0.01" different at the thickest end. PaleAqua (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Well spotted. Get me some sandpaper and I'll have mine down to 0.75 inches :) Neıl ☎ 21:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
However Toshiba Portege 2000 IS thinner [3]. Kricke (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Written like a magazine article

The section on the worlds thinnest claim is written like tabloid news. Yes Apple's claim needs qualified, but not in the manner it's been done. Further, why is a majority of the information located in the overview repeated in the specs section (such as the ethernet cable, etc)? Generally the article needs some proper editing with the view that this is an encyclopedia, not The Times. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the section provides proper elucidation of Apple's claim, with proper note that it is not strictly the case. Earlier versions of the article said merely that Apple/Jobs claimed to have "the world's thinnest laptop," which did not reflect the nuance of the claim. Feel free, of course, to suggest alternate wording. PRRfan (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Given the thinness of the MacBook Air is one of its major selling points, a short, referenced section on the claim is entirely appropriate. As PRRfan says, feel free to suggest alternative wording. Neıl ☎ 21:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Green computing - BFR

The section currently states: "Most circuit boards are free of brominated flame retardants." What is being said here? Is this a noteable quality of a MacBook Air? Or was someone lazily refuting the orginal press release-like edit (that is to say: all the manufacturers are switching from BFR, so this doesn't stand out)? --Charles Gaudette (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I reworded it to match the information in the source. Kaomso (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

All LCDs are built on glass substrates. It's that arsenic-free substrate that is important here. The transparent covering to the display is not glass. Lloyd Wood (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Subnotebook?

Is a laptop computer with a full-sized keyboard, trackpad, and 13.3-inch LCD screen really a subnotebook? Kaomso (talk) 04:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Is a laptop computer without ethernet and an optical drive really a complete notebook? -203.188.235.9 (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure. The point of the question, however, related to how the article appeared at the time the question was asked. This is a nice write-up. Kaomso (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
In a similar vein, I was going to suggest changing its "Type" to 'ultraportable', but Apple uses the term notebook. It's not up to us to judge their use of terminology. Msanford (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Picture of MacBook Air

The previous picture of the MacBook Air, with the screen showing a typical usage scenario, is being discussed as part of a request for deletion over here. Kaomso (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thinnest point is irrelevant

One could make any laptop thinner in that sense by letting a piece of paper stick out somewhere! —Bromskloss (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The article does not make the comparison with the thinnest point. Kaomso (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, but it's still not a very useful piece of information. A bit like "Here's four new tyres for you car. One of them is fit for driving in 300 km/h, with the others, you have to drive slower.". —Bromskloss (talk) 09:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh...

I hate to be the 32nd guy to complain about this article, but is it really necessary to point out that it fits in a manilla envelope? Anybody reading the article will have been told that Apple calls it the world's thinnest laptop, the thickest and thinnest points in inches, and the various things that had to be downsized or removed to make it that small by the time they get there.--206.163.252.30 (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid it needs to be mentioned somehow. The manilla envelope was part of the first presentation of the laptop, and numerous more or less intelligent references on the internet have been made to it. In order for people to understand those references, it should be mentioned here. Mlewan (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

lol MY Macbook Air fits in an envelope....well my laptop has a cd drive Windows 1 Apple 0 Jay794 (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"I'm afraid it needs to be mentioned somehow". Needs to be?! WTF?! An encyclopedia needs to explain "intelligent" (eh?) references to a publicity stunt at a product launch? Let's be sensible, please. Notable and relevant facts, not marketing gimmicks. 86.17.211.191 (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Well some marketing gimmicks end up having a notable effect, like Coke's Santa Claus.  :-) --Psm (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mlewan, I'm not sure an advertisement or marketing ploy needs to be mentioned. The article is about a thin computer, it is not some revolutionary product. The other MacBooks do not mention their past marketing at all, why should this one? I have no idea what Coke's Santa Claus means? And I would imagine that is a purely seasonal marketing plan anyway. I'm removing the manilla envelope reference for the Nth time, many others think this is not necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.197.70.15 (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The referece to Coca Cola's Santa he was talking about refers to originally Santa was in a green outfit, Coca Cola changed it to red and it has been like that for ages. Jay794 (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Not the world's thinnest laptop

It's the 3rd thinnest laptop. And every time I try to make this change, I get reverted. I have sources saying the size of the other 2, and I have a source literally saying it's the third thinnest laptop. Is there any way this can be incorporated into the lead paragraph? I think it should, to make it NPOV. The intro makes one believe it really is the thinnest laptop, while this is not true. нмŵוτнτ 20:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that the consensus both in general, and in discussions here (disclaimer: I've only skimmed them) is that the "world's thinnest laptop" claim refers to computers currently produced, which unless I'm mistaken (which I might be), it is. I do think that the historical thin laptops do deserve a mention in the article, but not in the intro. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 17:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, well, I removed the "world's thinnest" claim from the intro then, as well. It's misleading, and we do not need misleading information in a NPOV encyclopedia. If that claim is made in the article, it needs to say that it is the thinnest currently being produced (not imply that it is the thinnest laptop). In my opinion, Apple is misleading with this, in general, leading the public, including myself, to believe that this is the thinnest laptop ever. As long as the article mentions this, because people are likely researching it to find out this type of information, especially since many blogs and such are talking about how it is not the thinnest, and people want a verifiable place to see which is true, and check Wikipedia (that's what I did).нмŵוτнτ 18:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Re-added with qualification "manufactured today" and reference explaining this. I think this should do. -- Lea (talk) 04:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

But Apple doesn't claim that it's the "thinnest notebook (currently in production)", it claims to be "The world's thinnest notebook."[4] Full stop. Which implies that it's the thinnest in existence which it clearly isn't. Stating this in the intro is entirely appropriate. ʄ!•¿talk? 19:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


Well why doesn't it say apple claims it is the thinnest, then point out they are wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.107.171.217 (talk) 14:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous

4 millimeters wide at the artistically rounded edges really doesn't count. This is either B.S. or a brochure in an encyclopedia article, or if you want to include it as encyclopedic, point out that people keep trying to imply that it's 4 millimeters thick - a bit like my opponent is a known homosapien and his sister's a thespian! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElectronicsEnthusiast (talk • contribs) 20:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a Dell XPS, and I have modified it myself so it is 0.3 mm thick at it's thinnest point. Its a simple modification that anyone can do at home, all you need to do is tape a strip of paper round the edge, thus making the edges 0.3 mm thick. 88.107.171.217 (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

How's this as a start for a replacement for the current section, Criticism?

"The MacBook Air has been criticised for its high price compared to other notebooks of similar specifications suggesting that a premium is being paid for its form factor. In addition, the lack of an optical drive and low hard disk space has also drawn criticism. The MacBook Air's battery is not replaceable similar to the iPod and related Apple products." RMFan1 (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Good, i would go ahead and do the replacement and remove the tags. E.3 (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


The last few lines in the criticism section need a heavy grammatical overhaul. It is incredibly hard to understand the points that are trying to be put across in the sentences that don't begin with capital letters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.32.138.18 (talk) 03:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about overheating

The Age is a reputable source, removing the tag. E.3 (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue has nothing to do with the reputability of the source, rather the need for more sources to back up the multiple claims made in the paragraph. If the issues are well documented then this should not be much of a task. The paragraph makes several claims, one about 'CPU lockup' due to overheating. Australia is not uniquely hot, was it because the article was written when it was summer there? Another point is about Apple attempting to fix the issue (and failing), again this is vague. Lastly the statements made that seem to create the problem are also kind of generic. It's obvious that those type of behaviours are likely to increase heat. Overall, very vague and as the tag says it needs some collaborating. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
That is the issue, the problem is being caused BY generic types of behaviour that is the reason that customers are concerned in the first place. E.3 (talk) 06:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Further, reading the actual article it cites the Apple discussion boards are their source (or one of them). Discussions are not considered sources on Wikipedia as it is simply original research. Basically at this point a reference from someone authoritative is needed. At it stands now this is original research which was compiled and published on an online agent. See WP:REF, WP:V, WP:OR for more detail. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


The age is not an "online agent", see The Age. This article was published in the newspaper, i simply used the online reference for convenience and clarity. If The Age is not able to do original research, who is? I do not believe this is a generic issue at all and I will search for further sources to further this point. I am well aware of the fact that Australia is not uniquely hot, hence why the article says "such as". E.3 (talk) 06:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Found further sources, removing the tag. E.3 (talk) 06:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Templates and Refs

what happened to the templates and refs? something's seriously wrong. can someone take a look at it? i may be able to later, but now, work calls... – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 14:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be fixed now, assuming I didn't miss anything when checking the history. PaleAqua (talk) 07:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Sweet, thanks so much! – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 11:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

mba reference?

^ Cite error: Invalid < ref > tag; no text was provided for refs named mba

This is currently the 14th reference. What's going on with this?

Matthew Meta (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Someone deleted the reference defining mba without putting it back into one of the other references. A good rule of thumb is when removing a named reference of the form (<ref name="refname">reftext</ref>), look for one of the matching references that only includes the name (<ref name="refname"/>) and replace it with the full reference. PaleAqua (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

The last few lines in the criticism section need a heavy grammatical overhaul. It is incredibly hard to understand the points that are trying to be put across in the sentences that don't begin with capital letters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.32.138.18 (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed POV and comment hypertext from the Criticism section. This is not a forum for platform wars, and if you add content to this section, it needs to be cited, easy to read, and non-POV. Thanks. AlexReynolds (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Price

from the article: The MacBook Air has been criticized for its high price compared to other notebooks of similar specifications, suggesting that a premium is being paid for its form factor.[31]

i looked there, and didn't see anything in the article to support that sentence. anyone want to take a second look at it to make sure i didn't just miss it? – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 18:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Remote Disk Feature

On the macbook air thre is a feature that allows you to install a program from another computer's cd drive. Is it illeagl and if it is it should be metioned. Plyhmrp (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Plyhmrp

Remote Disc is mentioned early in the article, and the act of using another computer's drive to install software is not illegal. If you were to install the software on multiple computers outside of the license on that software, generally speaking you would be in violation of the license, which is a civil and not criminal issue. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 20:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability

Can anyone tell me why this artivle is so notable? Come on, it is not the world's thinnest notebook. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Because, don't you know, this is Wikipedia, and on Wikipedia, everything Apple or Steve does deserves a pages-long article! In all seriousness, the first notability guideline is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." The press coverage of the MacBook Air has been extensive, across television, print, and online news outlets. Even excluding the echo chamber of gadget and technology blogs, etc, there is still a large body of coverage of this product. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 20:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is one-sided. --116.72.148.198 (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

USB?

The article says: "Because of tight clearance, some devices, including some headphone jacks and 3G USB cellular modems will not fit, requiring users to purchase either a powered USB hub or an extension cable in order to use their devices.[35][36]"

But the USB spec requires A plugs to have 27.0mm of no wider than 15.7mm -- see figure 6.3 of the USB 2.0 spec. I would say these devices aren't actually USB compliant. Is that true?

The USB article even remarks about this: "Unlike most other connector standards, the USB specification also defines limits to the size of a connecting device in the area around its plug. This was done to avoid circumstances where a device complies with the connector specification but its large size blocks adjacent ports. Compliant devices must either fit within the size restrictions or support a compliant extension cable which does."

From the photos on the linked pages, these devices are *way* over the 15.7mm limit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.106.53 (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

removal of "environmental impact"

Bproman removed the "environmental impact" section "because it failed to mention how the environment was impacted." Greenpeace is a well-known and politically significant organization, and their statements on certain measures Apple took with regard to the design of the MacBook Air is notable. The section may have been poorly titled, but I don't think that was a good reason to remove it. Ruminate over that a bit, Bproman, and then let us know what you think. Unless somebody posts a reason to the contrary, I plan to revert the edit in a few days. Capedia (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

while i agree that greenpeace does lend some notability to the claims, they still seemed pretty specious and suspect to me, and really, don't need to be linked to. its just them trolling for attention, not meaningful research or information. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 07:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll say that the section shouldn't be reinserted as-is. The Greenpeace angle is better taken care of at Apple Inc.#Environmental Record. At best, this deserves a one- or two-sentence mention here, with a link to the Apple reference included from the removed section. Something to the effect of "Following complaints by Greenpeace, Apple released the MBA, whose design includes more environmentally-friendly components..." Probably rephrased a bit, but that's the gist of all that needs to be here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll do it the way Hand suggests. That seems like a reasonable compromise. Capedia (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Despite Hand's statement that "The Greenpeace angle is better taken care of at Apple Inc.#Environmental Record," I included a Greenpeace quote because it was a response specifically to the MacBook Air. The section now consists of two brief sentences plus the link Hand suggested. Capedia (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The Screen

Not much discussion about the screen on the air. It's just it's quite a fantastic screen compared to all the other Mac notebooks.

No, it's not. pretty much the same as any MacBook screen, and lower resolution than any MacBook Pro. LED backlighting might be the only thing of note. Lloyd Wood (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
FWIW: Its significantly brighter than the MacBook screens, and reaches full brightness as soon as it is powered on, thanks to the LED backlighting. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 20:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Lloyd, any documentation I could look over showing them to be lower quality? Resolution is one thing, I was speaking of quality (clarity, colours, brightness) - which is best I've seen on the Air which is noteworthy in my opinion. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

When choosing an Apple notebook I compared identical photographs on the Macbook, Macbook Air, and Macbook Pro. The Macbook Air screen does have noticeably colour advantages over the Pro, which uses the exact same screen technology and backlighting; and the Macbook, which understandably is behind the others as it uses older backlighting technology. The only explanation I have for the difference between the Air and the Pro is that the Air's integrated graphics card does a better job of representing colours than the Pro's dedicated one. 4a4a (talk) 13:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I think any conclusions from comparing heavily retouched or even non-photographic PR stills isn't going to really accurately reflect differences in specific screen quality. I have a hard time believing that the Air's integrated video card handles anything better than the dedicated GPUs in the MacBook Pros. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ ( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs ) 18:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Pixel density of the screens according to Computer World is 135 ppi and 128 ppi for the 11" and 13" Airs, respectively.

New version coming?

Are there rumours of a new version coming out soonish? I think I read something along those lines but can't remember where. Malick78 (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There should be a new new version coming soonish. Based on what has been done, the refresh should come with intel core i3, i5, and/or i7 in it. See iMac, Macbook Pro, and Macbook. joe1997 16:51, 19 May 2010 (EST)

"Criticism" Section Seems Biased

Title says it all. Discuss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.170.130 (talk) 22:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've replied to your concerns on your talk page. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Overheating issue is not solved

The "Using your Macbook Air" forum on discussions.apple.com reveals several current threads of people complaining about the kernel_task problem (runaway kernel). The article text implies that this problem has been solved, and it is not at all clear that it has been.69.196.169.169 (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You'd need to find a reliable source as forum discussions are not considered to be one. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I have degrees in electrical engineering and computer science and I can confirm that these complaints are legitimate. I am experiencing them myself. Am I and the tens of others who are posting about this considered reliable sources? I think the article text should be amended.20.137.52.231 (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, see the link above about verifiable sources as this is an encyclopaedia, not a blog. Further what you propose is original research which runs contrary to the whole verifiability policy. I'm sure if this is a prevalent issue you will not be hard pressed to find good sources. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, Mr. Lawyer, you do not understand this problem and neither do the bloggers (I thought citing bloggers was not on?) you cite. Please leave the factually correct statement I wrote alone. I am simply pointing out that there are a significant number of people still complaining about this problem.69.196.169.169 (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Update required

Seems to me that the page is lacking information regarding the newer generation rigs. The specs section appears up to date but some of the article (for example the secion on hard drives) seems to refer to the original units only. Of course the information is still relevant, but does not reflect the currently available models with complete accuracy. Likewise certain design flaws (eg overheating) are alleged to be fixed by many third-party tests and reviews. 194.73.131.50 (talk) 12:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

3.5mm jack has surround sound?

I think the 3.5mm audio-out jack is capable of running some sort of surround sound 4.0 4.1 5.1? I do not know. The evidence? I was playing a DVD video and inserted headphones with a 4-connector plug instead of the normal 3-connector plug. This gave me (to my surprise) only the rear channels through the headphones. Could anybody find out?

Yours Jan Marius Evang email redacted 217.77.32.229 (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum- read the template at the top. --Airplaneman (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Add to table

I was thinking, just to mirror the MacBook article, that we could add the section Minimum operating system required. I would do it myself, except that I don't know the min. OS required. I would appreciate your input on this matter (below). If you can, please add the relevant info with at least 1 ref. I'm going to do some research myself, too. Thanks, Airplaneman (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

thinner models

Balenman modified the article with the claim that http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/notebooks/0,1000000333,39165287,00.htm describes a thinner notebook model than the MacBook Air. However, a careful reading of the ZDNet review reveals that this is not the case. According to the review, "the VAIO X505 is a remarkable 2.1cm thick at its widest point and 0.97cm at its thinnest." The MacBook Air, at it thickest point, is 0.76 inches, which is 1.93cm, which is thinner than the VAIO. I'm reverting. Capedia (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

--yes, the Vaio x505 wasn't thinner, but the Mitsubishi Pedion from ~1998 was. Following are URLs from Wired and CNet indicating as such. The Pedion was a full-featured Petntium-MMX notebook w/ hard drive, etc. Someone want to put this up in "criticism," as Apple was clearly wrong in their assertion? Here are the links: http://news.cnet.com/Mitsubishi-unveils-notebook/2100-1001_3-205190.html and http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/01/mitsubishi-pedi.html macadamiaman —Preceding undated comment added 04:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC).

I've just added a note about the thickness controversy between the Adamo and Air due to tapering. I'll add the Pedion as well. twilsonb (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
After looking over it, the Adamo is thinner than the Pedion, so it's out of the running as they're both rectangular. Perhaps that belongs in the controversy section? twilsonb (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I've added it to the controversy section as it has been reported in reliable sources.twilsonb (talk) 02:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Advertising

In the "Advertising Section," it says that "The MacBook Air launch was accompanied by a television commercial emphasizing its PC like qualities." The only qualities I saw it emphasize were the fact that it would turn on (or wake from sleep mode), and the fact that it could fit into a manila envelope. Am I wrong? Are there other qualities that it featured that I just missed?~~john. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.207.207.237 (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

This entire section seems completely redundant. I would be inclined to delete the whole thing. Any other opinions? Electrosaurus (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


"The MacBook Air has a price premium compared to other notebooks of similar or better specification.[23]" This link is from a review dated 2008/01/25/. The MacBook Air has been updated since then and the price reduced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.64.111.230 (talk) 11:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Review

I was asked to review this article some time ago, and was hoping for it to be expanded before I did so. So my main complaint is lack of content.

  • Lead is too short, it should summarise the article (include updates), see MacBook Pro.
  • Still too short - needs to summarize article. Airplaneman ✈ 02:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Yep, again try to model the lead on MacBook Pro, i.e. the Air is a product that was new to Apple with no direct predecessor, uses Core 2 Duo, years and months (not day though) of updates. Maybe mention it is the first Mac with an optional solid-state drive. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Mention that the Air was the first model to utilise the "precision aluminum unibody enclosure" construction, the current wording suggests otherwise.
  • It's "precision aluminum unibody enclosure" or "unibody for short. Not 100 percent done. Also, "carved from a solid sheet of aluminum". Mmmm, sounds like Apple's own work; try "produced using a single sheet...". OSX (talk • contributions) 06:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Features section seems okay, but the late 2008 and mid 2009 updates are not mentioned in the prose, again see MacBook Pro.
  •  Done.  ℳono  21:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Reception could be expanded, with reviews added á la MacBook Pro.
  • Not really, can you include the criticisms that I listed below? OSX (talk • contributions) 06:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Criticism: well one USB port is probably a major criticism, as is the poor battery life. Another major hurdle is the excruciatingly slow boot-up times of the models with the 4200 rpm hard drive. The solid-state models seem okay. Also 80 and 120 GB hard drives are unacceptable in a computer of the Air's price—it's not as if larger sizes aren't available.
  • Not sure I see your point as a reviewer, but if I put that in an article, it would be considered quite POV. —mono 20:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Try finding these issues in the reviews you looked at; I'm sure they cropped up somewhere. Airplaneman ✈ 02:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm no reviewer and I noticed these from testing a machine out for a few minutes at the shops (with the bootup taking about half of that time). I am sure all this has been mentioned elsewhere as Airplaneman stated. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  •  Expanded, will do more.  ℳono  21:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing these changes implemented. Will review further when complete. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

  • You've linked "unibody" to MBP, but the Air debuted the concept not the MBP. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "The current model [.. runs] on a 1066 MHz bus." What about the original? OSX (talk • contributions) 06:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


  • Merge "User serviceability" with the sentence, "The battery is internal and not user-removable, and the RAM is soldered onto the motherboard. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "The MacBook Air was greeted with both positive and negative reception when it was introduced." --> "The MacBook Air was greeted with mixed reception when it was introduced." OSX (talk • contributions) 06:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 Reworded  ℳono  18:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • The "slow speed" mentioned under "Launch and reception" relates to the non-SSD models. Another criticism is the maximum of only 2 GB RAM. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Some more reviews would be good if they add new content. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Doing... I'll look for some more, however, most reviews say the same thing.  ℳono  18:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Some decent reviews:  ℳono  19:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "CPU temperatures as low as 66 degrees Celsius (150 degrees fahrenheit)", Americans use imperial units, so shouldn't those be listed first? OSX (talk • contributions) 06:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I would like the specifications table to model the table at MBP. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 Not done How is it different?  ℳono  18:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Delete, Included operating system, K-slot, Trackpad, Keyboard, and Audio. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Rename "Port connections" to "Connections". Combine Bluetooth, Wireless networking, and Wired Ethernet with "connections". OSX (talk • contributions) 03:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Rename "Physical dimensions" to "Dimensions" and create a new section for weight (weight is not a dimension). Units should be imperial first, metric second. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 Done  ℳono  16:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Add a section with the model numbers, for example, "MB466*/A".
  • The section "Launch and reception" does not say anything about the launch of the product. Are you planning to add it? Airplaneman ✈ 00:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  •  Will add Macworld launch,("something's in the air")...  ℳono  17:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • It would be nice to have a section detailing software and operating systems. Airplaneman ✈ 01:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Not sure Like iLife and stuff?  ℳono  17:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The Next Generation of Macbook Air

Apple just released that they are producing new Macbook Air computers in 13 and 11 inch models. They will also be cheaper than the first generation. Here's some info from Apple's website: http://www.apple.com/macbookair/ Dreammaker182 (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

And they are both thinner and lighter so the Thinnest Laptop controversy should be updated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.236.161 (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

2010 Air issues

Reports of display issues here: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=20055 = You, Me and Everyone Else ; { talk = 03:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Mention of Dell Adamo in article intro

The Dell Adamo comment reads to me as more like trivia and seems out of place in the MacBook Air article. It's interesting no doubt, but I didn't get the impression it really belonged. I believe the phrasing, "At the time of release, Apple described…" is enough to imply that there will be obvious future contesters for 'thinnest laptop' status. If you specifically mention Dell Adamo, does that mean any thinner laptops in the future will also need to be listed there too? EssentialParadox (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

In my view, though, I don't think every laptop has to be listed. The way I think of it is that one could benefit from knowing that the Apple's claim that the Air is the thinnest laptop was, and will be, contested. In this case, the Adamo was used as an example. Regards, Airplaneman talk 03:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it's OK to have Adamo mentioned; it was the primary right-after competitor to the original Macbook Air, thus distinct from future thin laptops. bayonetblaha 06:24, 03 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayonetblaha (talk • contribs)

Did an Apple employee write this?

This article is a blatant advertisement. Either it was written by someone working for apple or someone who needs to wash the rose tinting off their glasses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.123.114 (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Any tips on how to fix it? Airplaneman ✈ 04:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

External Link Suggestion

Please consider adding a resource link to MacBook Air 2010, a resource dedicated exclusively to the 2010 MacBook Air update. I have not edited Wikipedia articles in the past and do not feel comfortable doing so without community agreement. GMorgan808 (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the link since no one voiced any concerns. I hope that I did it correctly. GMorgan808 (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Image usage

There has been some controversy of the image for this article. The current image is a high quality image, but is not in the public domain. Sometimes, the image for this article is replaced by a low quality, but free image.

Please do not replace the current image unless there is a HIGH QUALITY alternative.

LordAlpha1 22:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordalpha1 (talk • contribs)

You don't need extremely high quality to let the user know what it is they are seeing. There is no problem with the free image so the free image stays. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 22:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Future

The MacBook Air has been criticized for its small screen, therefore a 17-inch MacBook air is in the works which will be more environment friendly, lighter (~4.5 lbs), easier to carry around the house or at work, and it will be superior to the current unibody 17-inch Macbook Pro. Currently Apple is conducting consumer surveys and has received strong feedback to develop the 17-inch Macbook air. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samstayton (talk • contribs) 03:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

new model already announced http://www.apple.com/macbookair/ Dreammaker182 (talk) 22:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Just noticed that if you scale the weight of the Air to a 17" version you end up just below the weight of the polycarbonate macbook. Now to wonder if you can fit a high quality 17 inch screen in a 6.9mm lid.. Henk Poley (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Weight with or without charger

In almost every case, anybody carrying a Macbook Air (or other laptop/notebook) will want to have a charger nearby. So we should always try, if possible, to list the total weight both with and without the charger. The charger for some brands (e.g., Dell) is much heavier than for others (e.g., Apple), so it's hard to compare portability without considering the weight of the charger. If we have space to list only one, the weight including charger will be more useful. (Similar to listing the weight of an automobile including the spare tire.)

At the very least the Article should specify whether or not the listed weight includes the charger. Right not it's not clear. Rahul (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Right now, it's the weight of the computer, not any accessories. I do see how it can be confusing; hopefully I've clarified it in this edit. Maybe we could list the charger weight in a separate row. What do you think? Airplaneman ✈ 14:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes! List the charger, that comes with each of the types and note its power and weight (specify the one weighted outlet adapter) and cable length. http://www.apple.com/de/macbookair/specs.html say that Airbooks come with a 45 W charger (instead of 60 W type with MacBook). --Helium4 (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

confusion about the external SuperDrive and Remote Disc software

In the Design section, it says "To regain the features of an optical drive, users can either use a separately-available external USB SuperDrive, or the bundled Remote Disc software to access the optical drive of another computer. However, this method only allows for disk browsing or software installation; DVD movies or CDs cannot be watched or listened to."

I think this language is confusing. The second sentence appears to be saying that you cannot watch DVD movies via either Remote Disc or the external SuperDrive. However, Apple's specs for the external SuperDrive say that "[i]t lets you install software and play and burn both CDs and DVDs, including double-layer DVDs."

I would suggest that either the second sentence should be rewritten to make it clear that "this method" refers only to the Remote Disc software, or additional cites should be added to back up the claim the DVDs cannot be watched via the external SuperDrive. I don't know for sure which is true so I hesitate to make this change myself.

Jankplus (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Why no mention of the different SSDs? 72.152.142.46 (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

'World's Thinnest Laptop'

This refers to the 2008 Macbook Air, not the current model.

Cf.:

They are plainly no longer making this claim, so I will greatly reduce the prominence of this. Sumbuddi (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Apple never made that claim. That claim was invented by a Wikipedia editor. If you listen well to the original presentation, the original statement is textually "the thinnest notebook on the market", and it was 100% true at the time. All others thin laptop like the Vaio X505 were discontinued in 2008. 216.46.15.66 (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm positive I saw apple adverts in the UK that said it was the worlds thinnest notebook and didn't qualify that statement with current. 86.22.248.209 (talk) 10:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

325 mm, not 330 mm

In the list of specifications it says that the 13" model is 12.8 in / 330 mm wide. However, those two are not the same. 12.8 in = 325.12 mm, 330 mm = 12.99 in. Apple lists 12.8 in / 32.5 cm. I went in to correct this, but it looks like the inches are automatically converted to millimeters incorrectly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.7.138.167 (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I've now changed the rounding options for those conversions to make them consistent with apple's figures. 86.22.248.209 (talk) 10:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

memory shared with graphics

I have an 11" MBA installed with windows 7 (bootcamp). And I found out on my MBA when on Windows(I dont know how to check on Mac OS X) that the memory shared with system memory differs from the one in the specifications, so its seems to me that the shared memory on applies to Mac OS X. Anyone able to confirm that? Regards 175.156.215.250 (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That's right — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.205.112 (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Article to short?

I have to say, this is much shorter than most Wikipedia articles about an Apple product. I would suggest that we expand it. --Paddude (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

GT/s ?

I don't think this is right -- Gigateslas? its in the table for FSB under the 2011 model 129.67.86.189 (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

More confusion about external Super Drive and/or Remote Disc software

"To regain the features of an optical drive, users can either purchase a external USB SuperDrive or the bundled Remote Disc software, only for disk browsing or software installation, to wirelessly access the optical drive of another computer[1][31] that has the Remote Disc program installed.[32][33] It can also be used to reinstall the system software from the included installation DVD."

The two sentences, above, completely confused me--mostly because of the way that the pronouns are used. Does it mean that I have to purchase either a Super Drive or the software?..but wait--the software is bundled--huh? then what do the next phrases mean and refer to?

Finally, to what noun does the "It" subject that starts the second sentence refer to: the SuperDrive;Remote Disc program; DVD???

I am lost. This entire paragraph needs rethinking and rewriting.

(Sudarat64 (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC))

  • The external USB SuperDrive is an additional purchase, it didn't come with the MacBook Air. Alternatively, a free software package called "Remote Disk" could be used to access another Mac that had an optical drive. Meaning... you put the DVD you want to use in that other Mac and access it from the MacBook Air. (The software was installed on BOTH Macs.)
  • A SuperDrive could be used to reinstall OS X or OS X was later included on a USB Flash drive instead of DVDs.
  • The idea was with the early MacBook Airs that it was usually a second Mac. If you needed to reinstall something from DVD you already had another "main" Mac that you could borrow its optical drive via the "Remote Disk" software. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 06:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Model Numbers

Can someone add the missing model numbers please.

For some weird reason, geeky part-numbers made the list (which I assume might be found if you buchered your unit with a screwdriver), but the actual model number that's printed on the bottom of the mac is not mentioned anyplace.

These units all look practically identical - the only way to tell them apart properly is to read the model number off the bottom, so I think it's pretty important that these get put in here! 120.151.160.158 (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Apple takes responsibility for broken hinge issues

I'm writing this on the talk page because I'm not good at wiki editing yet; if someone more experienced could properly add it to the main article page that would be nice.

In the criticisms section, it says: Some users of the first revision have found that the plastic holding the right hinge cracks under normal use, making the notebook nearly unusable.[30] Additionally, there has recently been a "blanket rule" sent out by Apple to its stores around the world which says that the hinge breaking is caused by "user damage", despite a number of cracked and snapped hinges on the Rev A laptop. Therefore, the expensive replacement of the hinge (ergo, the screen as well) is at the user's expense and is not covered by the warranty [31]

However this problem is described in the following knowledge base article: http://support.apple.com/kb/TS2948 and says :You can take your MacBook Air to an Apple-Authorized Service Provider or Apple Retail Store for evaluation and repair if necessary, even if your product is out of warranty.

If you previously paid for a repair for hinge-related issues that were not caused by accidental damage, you may be eligible for a refund. Contact Apple for more information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.73.27 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thunderbolt/MiniDisplay Port

Thunderbolt doesnt depleted Mini Display Port as the article suggests in the introduction. I just fixed this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.191.222 (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I also fixed the Design section. The article is wrongly stating that Mini DisplayPort is gone in the 2011 version. The port is still there, but now shares DisplayPort function with Thunderbolt. The port interface remained the same and is backward compatible with DisplayPort devices and adapters.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.191.222 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Separate Tapered MacBook Air from older models

Why is the tapered MacBook Air combined with the older generation MacBook Air with a different design? The late 2010 models and forward should be separated into their own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg440 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

New Version of Macbook Air?

I'm pretty sure the Macbook Air had a slight refresh in 2016. The base model now has 8gb ram. NewByzantine (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

It is not really a refresh. Still the same components are in use. But like it it already mentioned in the table, 8gb is the standard delivery since April 19, 2016. The 4GB version is not available anymore. --GodeNehler (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MacBook Air. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Binary vs decimal prefixes

Since there already is a helpful note highlighting the differences between the conventions of denoting the size in bytes for conventional storage (in a regualar, base-10 fashion) and volitile "RAM" (in the binary, base-2 fashion), I suggest the page be edited so that all mentions of RAM capacity are denoted correctly in "MiB" and "GiB" (as opposed to the incorrect "MB" and "GB") and the note be changed accordingly (again, "MB" and "megabyte" to "MiB" and "mebibyte"), possibly adding explanation and a link to the binary prefix Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.87.176.235 (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Call to re-merge the separate generations info into this master page and not split

I suggest that the article NOT be split into the separate pages for each model generation, and that they be re-merged to this page. Or at least some of the basic consolidated spec tables be shown on this page, with prominent linking to the detail separate pages.

The vast majority of people will not know or perceive obviously that there are links to the detailed separate pages -- such as when I just now failed to see the tiny (1)(2)(3)(4)(5) links to the generations of Macbook in the sidebar. Many people may not even know about the history of Macbook generations to know to follow through to the "xth generation" link. Most people will look for the information on this page, and fail to find the content they are looking for unless it is very clearly called out visually as needing to follow a link. Currently, this wiki page looks like it is an article about MacOS compatibility, with little suggestion that full detail is a page click away.

Providing some preview of the full information here (specifically, the spec tables) could visually guide people to know that more is available, if a separate but additional page is desired. See as an example the iMac page, where it fails to show people that there is an Intel version of that model line that has its own page. The iMac page lacks the detailed tables people may be looking for, and unless you know to look at the Intel page, you will leave without finding the info desired.

The master page for a major product line should contain as much information as possible, and if needed to be split, only be done so in addition to the info on the main page, with prominent visual linking so the reader knows there is more detail. Supernova87a (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2020 (UTC)supernova87a

This article certainly should not be split without discussion and consensus. The page should be re-merged for now. BLAIXX 13:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Apple Silicon MacBook Air

So... The new MacBook Air, is that the 4th gen or 3rd gen?

Yes, that is all.

Synt4x 3rr0r at Line 420 (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Typically a new generation means some sort of hardware redesign. The M1 Air is nearly identical to its predecessor with the only major changes being a different processor and the removal of the fan. I think it should be grouped with the 3rd generation. BLAIXX 15:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Precedent for what gets labeled as a new generation is a major external redesign or a major processor architecture change. The Mac Mini is split by generation based on the switch from PowerPC to Intel even though the external design remained the same. The iMac has separate articles for PowerPC and Intel even though the design remained the same. The Apple silicon MacBook Air received a major hardware redesign, granted internally rather than externally, as it no longer has a cooling system or separate interfaces that have been merged into the SoC. Apple also refers to the Apple silicon models as a "new generation" on the product page. These are fundamentally different machines that listing all the technical specs in one table is an apples and oranges comparison. -Shivertimbers433 (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

DMI?

The 4th gens spec table mention a DMI. Is this correct? I thought DMI was an Intel proprietary design.--agr (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Ambiguous use of "GB"

The article uses the symbol GB in two different ways. Sometimes it means 1000^3 bytes and sometimes 1024^3 bytes. Wouldn't it be simpler for the reader to use GiB for the binary version? Or at least to disambiguate using something like "32 GB (32 GiB) of RAM and a 100 GB hard drive". Dondervogel 2 (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MacBook_Air/Archive_1&oldid=1121974781"