Talk:Mac (computer)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

HUGE rendering difference in FireFox

The difference is at the top of the page. While IE displays the page perfectly, Firefox completely leaves out the Apple Computer corporate info box and puts the contents box directly below the intro (centered). This makes two huge ugly white spaces on the left and right of the contents box. I have absolutely no idea how this can be fixed. B1oody8romance7 05:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

  • As myself and Carnildo said in the FAC, It could be the Wikipedia skin you're using (ie. Classic instead of Monobook). I have no problems viewing this article in FireFox. — Wackymacs 16:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I have no such problem with FireFox also. You seem to be asserting the problem is localized just to this page which I find highly improbable; there is not anything particularly special or different about the Wiki text. Go to Mozilla Firefox and see if you have problems with the info box and the table of contents. If you have a problem with that too, update to the latest FireFox. If your problem is just specific to this page, my conclusion is it is system specific and not a problem with FireFox or Wikipedia. --C S (Talk) 17:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I followed the above directions, but they mostly didn't apply to me. I disabled all my firefox extensions, which i guess were conflicting with something (?), because the page is the same as it is in IE now. But what happened to the corporate info box? 72.144.17.89 21:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
oops. 72.144.17.89 is me. forgot to login.B1oody8romance7 21:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

One of the recent edits got rid of the corporate info box. That's for the best anyway; the page was too cluttered. Anyway, glad to hear the problem's been "solved" or at least pinpointed. I'm afraid you're probably going to have to give up some of those extensions if the rendering issues are a real problem for you. --C S (Talk) 02:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

iPod

  • I would have to disagree with the todo list. I don't think that the ipod should be mentioned in this article seeing as how it isn't a Macintosh rather a completely different product line from Apple. Dan M 20:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I think it's relevant (I made the todo list, by the way) - The iPod has had a significant so called "halo-effect" on sales of the Mac, Apple reported that many users who bought an iPod also bought a Mac because of it. Lots of PC users have switched because of the iPod. I think it's note-worthy. — Wackymacs 19:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I would agree with that as long as the article dosen't go too into detail about the iPod but focus on its affect on the Macintosh line. Dan M 20:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

History begins with Steve Jobs?

Why does the history section begin with the mention of Steve Jobs visiting PARC three months after the Macintosh project began? There should be a mention of Jef Raskin starting the program, and the subsequent acquisition of the project by Jobs. More importantly, Burrell Smith is left out. I vaguely recall it was his innovative board design that started the whole thing. --C S 10:09, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Then be bold and expand the article! :-) Elf | Talk 15:03, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I agree, but writing on the basis of "vaguely recalling" something might not be a good idea - the folklore.org site is an excellent place to get the straight dope from the very people involved. It's also highly entertaining if you're interested in the Mac's history. Graham 23:07, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Actually, I inserted the note to encourage others to write this for me, and put "vaguely recall" to make sure people checked their sources instead of writing what I wrote. I'm pretty sure about my information about Burrell Smith and Jef Raskin, having gotten it from the very site you name. If you're familiar with folklore.org, maybe you can write something? Or perhaps I will indeed need to write something myself one of these days. --C S 06:28, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=The_Father_of_The_Macintosh.txt AlistairMcMillan 07:44, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Inappropriate external links

I just removed some edits made by someone to the External Links section, and I thought I'd clarify why I made those changes.

First, there was a redundant link (in a way two links). Folklore.org was already linked to, but the editor neglected to check if it was already included and added a duplicate link. To make it easier to avoid this particular mistake, I've added "(folklore.org)" to the description of the original link. Also, LowEndMac was already linked to (via their page on clones information), but it was duplicated; this time the link was to their main page. This time the mistake was also of another kind. See next paragraph.

Second, there are plenty of Mac retailers on the Web. It's really inappropriate to link to your favorite ones. I realize LowEndMac and EveryMac are pretty popular, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a directory for places to buy Macs. I think it's ok to link to a page, e.g. the LowEndMac page on clones, that has mostly useful information but little commercial content. So I removed the links to LowEndMac and EveryMac since their main pages are blatantly commercial.

Third, I removed the MacCentral link. Again, everyone has their own favorite sources of Mac news. There is no need to advertise one in particular, and I'd hate to see the page degenerate into a list of all the Mac news sources. It's easy enough to find these news sources. I don't think there's a particular need for the Wikipedia entry to list them. --C S 22:52, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Deleting the cruft from this page

I deleted a lot of cruft from this page, but User:GRAHAMUK reverted it, saying "there is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater." I don't wish to step on anyone's toes, so I'm leaving to others, especially Graham, to delete the cruft from this page, because there is undeniably some. I think Graham agrees there is some "bathwater" on this page, so I'll let him pick out what that is. But the page as it currently is, is unacceptable. Some of the comments are a couple of years old, and are rather non-informative. Also, is there a need to keep that year-old rant on Mac versus Wintel? --C S 23:00, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Yep, there's lots of bathwater here! However, it's unusual to ever delete stuff from a talk page - I think that's discouraged simply because it avoids old arguments being rehashed. Compromise - I'll move "the cruft" to an subpage as an archive. It'll probably never be visited again, but it's there if anyone ever wants to revisit the Mac vs Wintel argument again... (yawn). By the way - totally agree with above, there were far too many external links and many were totally inappropriate. Graham 00:06, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The list of models currently is subtitled "in no particular order". Might I suggest that this is put into chronological order by release date? Since we already have lists grouped by CPU this would make this list slightly more useful. Alphabetic is a bit unnecessary and arbitrary since most model names are similar. Thoughts? Graham 01:04, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Official name still "Macintosh"

The official name is still "Macintosh", it's just abbreviated "Mac". http://www.apple.com/store shows "Macintosh" as the title of the section selling Macs. Philwelch 06:28, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

One instance from their online store doesn't give much weight -- do you have further evidence for this? Every computer product I've bought from Apple in the last five years says "Mac". "Mac" (as well as "Macintosh") are registered trademarks of Apple, and in all of their marketing communications, Mac is used exclusively. scotts 00:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
The "Guidelines for Using Apple Trademarks and Copyrights" page at Apple's website contains numerous instances of "Macintosh" being the official name of the product line.--Patrick T. Wynne 04:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Innovations

From the list of innovations: User programmability through HyperCard and AppleScript

How is this an innovation? Because they made their own scripting language? Numerous other operating systems cam with programming tools before Mac OS.

Furthermore i don't think this article should list innovations relating to the System software at all, although closely tied togather the computer and OS are seperate. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 11:55, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

Hypercard was far more than a scripting language, and its GUI nature *WAS* an innovation. There are relatively few games written in scripting languages, yet it sufficed for Manhole, Cosmic Osmo, Spelunx, and (essentially) Myst. You don't see stuff like this written in csh. It's harder to justify AppleScript as a major innovation, especially with the example of QuicKeys preceding it.
Atlant 13:48, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Applescript is innovative in that it is programming in (more or less) plain English. HyperTalk provided the original vehicle for a language based on plain English, and Applescript was a redevelopment of it. Unless someone can point to some form of shell scripting in plain English predating this, I'd say it counts as an innovation. Graham 07:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, if you think that's English, then I guess so. But I don't think that Applescript is really any more English than is any other scripting language. Sure the words look slightly more familiar, but... :-)
This is not unlike the flamewars that break out over whether OpenVMS DCL is a more-understandable command language than Unix csh. Sure, one uses the apparently-English word "DIRECTORY" and the other says "ls", but neither one is really a natural human language. The first time SYS$NULL: or /dev/null comes up, the illusion is shattered.
Atlant 13:53, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"Set the title of the third window to 'My Document'" is plain English. This is Applescript. You could maybe also write something like "Window[3].title = 'My Document'", which is not plain English, and is probably not valid Applescript either. I don't know of any other command line scripting language that looks anything like this. To the purists it may be wordy, but to the average non-tech user, it's perfectly sensible. It's not about the actual words you use, it's how they are put together to form syntactically meaningful commands.Graham 03:27, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Hypercard is an innovation (I'm not familiar with it), it would really be a Mac OS innovation, not an Apple Macintosh innovation. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 18:42, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

Um...no. It's a Macintosh innovation. Mac OS is the Macintosh operating system. Philwelch 19:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Chronology

I could be wrong, but I don't believe CD-ROM drives were a standard feature on the Quadra 900. Rather, the first Mac they came standard on was the IIvx. This page at apple-history.com appears to agree with me.

You're certainly correct about the '900 not coming with a standard CD-ROM. I was in the market at the time and CD-ROMs were just becoming common then; Apple was selling their first external CD-ROM drive. The Quadra-840AV I bought later still didn't ship standard with a CD-ROM.
Atlant 16:13, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Also, I corrected a few dates in the Architecture section: PowerBook G4, 2000 ---> 2001; SuperDrive, 2000 ---> 2001; and B&W PMG3, 1998 ---> 1999. Those models' respective pages on apple-history.com also back me up. :-)

--anonymous Wikipedia newbie

Flat panel chronology

The article currently states that Apple introduced LCD flat panel displays as a standard feature on their desktop systems with the iMac G4 in 2002. Shouldn't this really be the 20th Anniversary Mac, introduced much earlier?

Atlant 14:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, the TAM was a special edition that sold few units. The LCD iMac was the first mainstream LCD Mac. Philwelch 19:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It was still 'standard'. And a desktop. And the first desktop to come with a flat panel standard. Other companies came out with flat-panel desktop PCs between then and the iMac G4, so if you discount the TAM, then the entire line about first LCD should be deleted. I went and deleted the second part of that reference mentioning the Macintosh Portable as a first 'laptop' to include an LCD, simply because it wasn't. Other companies had LCDs on portable/laptop computers well before the Mac Portable. Ehurtley 04:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Then remove the line entirely. It's not a "standard feature on their desktop systems" if it only came with one limited-edition system that cost $9999 at first release. Philwelch 19:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Non-Macintosh Inclusion

There are a few non-Macintosh items on this list, such as "iPod" and "iPod Shuffle". While these are products by Apple, they don't seem to qualify being listed as members of the Mac family. Does anyone see a good reason to retain them here?


Anyone interested in a _little_ Mac "joke"? (84.0.21.217 22:43, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC))

"Design language"

There's a very confusing and not very relevant paragraph about the Mac "design language" (which I guess means appearence). It doesn't make sense to me. It says that Jobs made a "key decision" in 1981 but that the first Apple product with the "design language" was the Mac SE, which came out in 1987. Mirror Vax 18:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

too specialized external link?

Anon editor 209.164.32.131 (talk · contribs) added the following external link, http://www.creativemac.com, which looks like it is possibly borderline spam, or at least a too specialized link. Could someone more knowledgable about the Mac please investigate. BlankVerse ∅ 13:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. While CreativeMac is a legitimate news site dedicated to DTP Macintosh articles, it is out of place in this article. I don't think that it is spam (it hasn't been posted to any other Mac articles), we should at least move it to the bottom of the list or Desktop publishing. S.N. Hillbrand 13:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apple ...

I found this piece of gem on the Internet:

x86 sucks. 68k rules!
Ethernet sucks. LocalTalk rules!
IDE sucks. SCSI rules!
VGA sucks. DB-15 Rules!
DVI sucks. ADC rules!
PS/2 sucks. ADB rules!
PCI sucks. NuBus rules!
PCIe sucks. PCI-X rules!
x86 sucks. PPC rules!
... of all those, ONE-BUTTON MOUSE RULES!

Boy, I will miss Apple someday. -- Toytoy 10:38, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)


Um, what is the point of all of this Mr. Toytoy? None of this is really relavent to the article, and it doesn't help anything. If you are an apple zealot [nuttin wrong with that of course], please propagate your messages elsewhere. Thanx : P CoolFox 04:21, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

There mayn't be a point, but it's awfully funny. Angelic Wraith

A marketshare section

Can we have a section about Mac's historical marketshare? I mean from 1984-now, U.S. and world, Mac v. DOS/Windows with major milestones marked (Steve's gone, "big and ugly" Mac II, ... PPC, clones, Steve's back, iMac, ... Mac OS 8, 9, X, ... x86). Were do we get the best available information? -- Toytoy 01:35, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

that was a HUGE picture

ok, someone put up an immense photograph of a Mac OS 10.4 Tiger box... It was WAY to big for comfort, so I reduced the image to a thumb. I do think the photo should stay, as it is somewhat relavent to the article. CoolFox 04:13, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

---

I disagree. The term "apple macintosh" refers to a line of computer systems - not an operating system. As such, I believe this first picture should be changed to show an apple macintosh. Jsephton

G5 appears not to be the first 64-bit PC

Although arguable, there is substantial evidence that the Powermac G5 was not the first 64-bit personal computer—at the very least, the question is arguable enough that it should not be baldly presented as such on the page. (see, for example, DEC Alpha on which many personal computers were based as early as 1992, and the MIPS Magnum R4000PC, released in 1993 or so.) —Ryanaxp July 3, 2005 17:00 (UTC)

Those don't seem to qualify as "personal computers". Perhaps, though, something about first widespread 64-bit PC would be appropriate? – Mipadi July 3, 2005 17:06 (UTC)
Allowing for variation in the definition of terms as vague as "personal computer," I nonetheless disagree that, for example, a Universal Desktop Box (which came equipped with an Alpha AXP 21066A microprocessor) or MIPS Magnum R4000PC do not qualify as personal computers. Indeed, taking one common definition as an example, the American Heritage Dictionary defines a personal computer this way:

A computer built around a microprocessor for use by an individual, as in an office or at home or school.

The UDB had a single, end-user oriented, 64-bit microprocessor, was designed to run Windows for a single user in an office or school environment, and was mass-marketed beginning in 1994 (about a decade before the Powermac G5). Similar features apply to the Magnum.

On the other hand, I am aware that Apple promoted the G5 with marketing copy that touted it as the first 64-bit personal computer (or something similar), but in view of objective evidence, this seems to have been simply marketing puffery (this ignoring altogether the software side of things, as Mac OS is not now nor has it ever been a 64-bit operating system in the sense of, say, NetBSD or Windows XP 64-bit Edition).

I'm not here to disparage Apple or the Mac, several of which I own and appreciate for their general robustness and skill of integration. However, POV puffery is POV puffery all the same, and really has no place in an encyclopedic entry. —Ryanaxp July 3, 2005 21:09 (UTC)
I think the note should be replaced, but perhaps with some clarification. I think the Power Mac G5 is notable in that it was the first widespread home PC 64-bit computer. The ones you mentioned may have come ealier, and may (arguably) have been PC's, but they hardly had much impact on the home PC market. – Mipadi July 3, 2005 21:15 (UTC)
Granting arguendo that the UDB or Magnum had little numeric impact on the home desktop market, could not the same be said of the G5? I say this not as an insult, but to point out the fact that even though the IBM processor is fully capable of 64-bit operation, and alternative operating systems such as Linux do in fact run in 64-bit mode on Powermac G5 machines, neither the G5 nor the UDB ever was sold or distributed with a 64-bit operating system, and no Powermac models even today run any Apple-produced 64-bit operating system—thus it could be said that the potential for 64-bit operation of the G5 had no more impact on the home personal computer market than did the UDB :).
Which begs the question, is this truly worthy of mention, then? Especially considering that it is a dubious claim to begin with (in view of much earlier computers that meet at least some definition of a "personal computer" and which were 64-bit), and that any practical effect lies solely in the realm of marketing-speak? —Ryanaxp July 3, 2005 21:23 (UTC)
The note should be rephrased so as not to claim that the PowerMac G5 is the first 64-bit computer in the home PC market, but I think it still warrants some mention. Just because something does not come first, does not mean it is not innovative and thus not worth mentioning. There were earlier 64-bit "PC's", yes, and there were earlier 64-bit Linux-based operating systems, but none of these garnered the attention, nor sparked interest, in 64-bit computing like the G5 did. – Mipadi July 3, 2005 21:47 (UTC)
Wikopedia ought to have definitions of the major types of computers. AlMac 5 July 2005 07:49 (UTC)
Personal Computer was at one time classed as a Micro Digital Computer in which other classes included Analog Computer and Hybrid Computer with the main entries in the scaling being Micro Computer, Mini Computer, Midrange Computer, Mainframe Computer, Super Computer, but some distinctions have come blurred. AlMac 5 July 2005 07:49 (UTC)
DEC Alpha was NOT a Personal Computer but a business and scientific Midrange or Mainframe scale. AlMac 5 July 2005 07:49 (UTC)
Don't mean to be pedantic but the DEC Alpha is a processor, not a computer. AlistairMcMillan July 5, 2005 15:10 (UTC)
While DEC was first to get 64 bit hardware into the market, the IBM AS/400 was the first computer system to have a fully integrated 64 bit Operating System on 64 bit hardware. AlMac 5 July 2005 07:44 (UTC)
Two points. Could you point us to any evidence that the Universal Desktop Box was ever mass-marketed to the personal computer market? And you are wrong about the version of Mac OS X that ships with PowerMac G5s not being 64-bit. Granted it is not a pure 64-bit system, but it is not a 32-bit OS. AlistairMcMillan July 3, 2005 23:24 (UTC)
Regarding the mass-marketing of the UDB, please see this archived version of a marketing website that casts the Multia (later known as the Universal Desktop Box) as a unified desktop machine for use in each of the "PC, UNIX and lagacy application" realms. A sample quote reads:

It's easy to run PC, legacy and UNIX applications side by side and to share data among them - it's like having several desktop devices in one!

The materials seem directed to the personal computer buying public, or at very least a business-oriented subset thereof.
As for me being incorrect about "PowerMac G5s not being 64-bit," I respectfully insist that I made no such statement—nor indeed did I state that MacOS is a 32-bit OS. What I did say is that, regarding software,

...Mac OS is not now nor has it ever been a 64-bit operating system in the sense of, say, NetBSD or Windows XP 64-bit Edition (emphasis added for conciseness),

which is something altogether different. For example, NetBSD uses libraries compiled using the 64-bit mode of operation (addressing word size, opcode length, etc.) on those platforms which support such a 64-bit environment. On the other hand, while MacOS supports 64-bit memory addressing (well, actually, a subset such as 42-bit addressing in practice, but that is irrelevant for this discussion), the libraries and device drivers used in MacOS are generally not compiled to use the full 64-bit mode of operation, although the hardware of the G5 processor is capable of it.—Ryanaxp July 4, 2005 05:17 (UTC) (updated July 4, 2005 15:07 (UTC))
I see your respectfully insistence and in turn respectfully insist that I never suggested you suggested "PowerMac G5s not being 64-bit". I did however suggest that you suggested that "the version of Mac OS X that ships with PowerMac G5s not being 64-bit".
When the marketing blurb talks about the UDB needing a "system administrator" to enable certain features or ease the configuration of certain features, doesn't that suggest the machine is not intended as a personal computer for the masses? AlistairMcMillan July 5, 2005 07:36 (UTC)

Pardon the intrusion, but this is absurd. Everyone knows the G5 wasn't the first 64-bit processor- everyone knows Dec Alpha beat them by over a decade... and everyone knows that the AMD Opteron was inside personal computers (yes, personal! months before the G5 was. This is old news. And when I say old news, I mean about three years old. This section shouldn't even be here. Angelic Wraith

GUI-based scripting edit

AppleScript isn't really a "GUI-based scripting edit". It's a scripting language and not necessarily done with a GUI. I object to that recent edit. The issue has already been discussed above. – Mipadi July 3, 2005 17:28 (UTC)

Actually, the discussion above did not seem to reach any consensus regarding the issue, and I frankly did not see any strong arguments set forth that supported the inclusion of hypercard or applescript as Mac features "introduced or made common" to the realm of personal computing. Perhaps hypercard has the stronger claim than applescript, however, given that Visual Basic largely followed the same paradigm (and was introduced after hypercard by some amount of time). One should not forget REXX or the other Amiga scripting languages, however (I will try to check whether REXX came after HyperCard). —Ryanaxp July 3, 2005 21:15 (UTC)
AppleScript is novel in that allows for natural-language scripting, which Visual Basic, while simple enough to learn, does not quite do. I think that "User programmability" should be kept because its inclusion in the Macintosh did make it more widespread in the home PC market. – Mipadi July 3, 2005 21:20 (UTC)
Then do you agree that the novelty of AppleScript lies in its natural-language-like syntax? If so, I propose changing the relevant entry to clarify that AppleScript introduced programming syntax similar to natural-language. —Ryanaxp July 3, 2005 21:28 (UTC)
That seems to fall under User Programmability, and if a reader wants to know, they can always click the link to the AppleScript article.
I think the argument here, as above, is in the use of "innovation." Apple may not have had a computer with the first user programmability (in fact, they definitely didn't), but their use of HyperCard and AppleScript is innovative in that made it much simpler than on older computers, and made easy user programmability more widespread in the industry. I don't see why it's such a concern as to whether it is listed as "user programmability" or "GUI-based user programming and natural language syntax in scripting languages". – Mipadi July 3, 2005 21:38 (UTC)

I have done programming with scripting languages, HyperCard, and AppleScript, and in my opinion the most innovative feature of the latter two is what Allen Cypher calls "Programming by Example". Both HyperCard and AppleScript (at least the System 7 version) would let the user enter a "recording" mode then type, move stuff around, navigate between cards and such, and when switching the recording mode off the machine would create commands duplicating the user's actions. Users could make simple applications without any conventional programming at all. This was far more innovative than the language syntax. Sadly, this is not available in AppleScript on Mac OS X. -- Corvus 02:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Messy page

I think the organization of this article isn't right, the History section should be the first section after the leading paragraph, and the History section itself seems far too long, most likely containing lots of details that can be found in other articles. It also seems there is a lot of content inside the History section instead of the Architecture section or a not yet existing section. The leading paragraph itself isn't very good, and needs more detail (take a look at the leading paragraph of the Mac OS article for example, or the Microsoft Windows article). The article could also do with a few more pictures, and details on the hardware architecture of the Macintosh in general, leaving the most detailed information to be explained on other articles specific to the subject in matter.

Also, where is all the information about the Macintosh culture and advertising, shouldn't there have their own sections? I am a long-time Macintosh user, and am pretty disappointed at this article, but I can tell you that the Macintosh has a huge cult, and Apple have done uncountable advertising campaigns and memorable TV advertisements for the Macintosh, there is simply lots of information missing from this article. From reading the article myself, I think that having this nominated for an article improvement drive would be an excellent idea. What do you, the main contributers and readers of this article think? Please keep the conversation cool, I don't want any arguments - this is just my opinion on the article, and I think that I and many others, by working together, can make this a much better article. — Wackymacs 20:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Oh, I also forgot to mention about the image used at the very top of this article, I think that though the Mac OS X Tiger retail box is relevant and related to the Macintosh, it would be better to be placed on the Mac OS page, rather than this page. I think using the Macintosh logo (the smily two half face used in the Mac OS article) would be better on this article, as it is the general logo of the Macintosh, Finder and was previously (up until Mac OS X 10.3 panther), used on the OS X retail boxes. — Wackymacs 20:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Could we write up a specific To-do list? I'd love to help, but I don't even know where to start. --C-squared 13:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Yep, I'll do that soon, it will help us. — Wackymacs 15:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

History

I've started cutting down some of the cruft and extraneous information in the 1979-1984 section (and may come back to cut more), and will be hitting some of the other sections soon. In particular, I'm going after little nuggets of trivia which add a little spice but also some fat to the article (e.g., "His ideas were collected into "The Book of Macintosh". Notable is Raskin's insistence on using meta-keys, rather than a mouse, to act as a pointing device." Compare differences in the history for other specifics). This might arguably make the history section a little drier, but we gotta start somewhere. --C-squared 06:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Sounds good, but history info for 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 seems to be missing. It jumps from talking about the iMac G3 in 1998 to talking about OS X in 2000 (Which is wrong, OS X 10.0 was released in 2001!!!), it misses out info about the failure of the Power Mac G4 Cube in 2000, and misses out crucial info of the new G4 Powerbooks which were released in 2003. I'm going to add lot's of the missing info. It seems the article is more about the past than the recent (past 5 years) and present. — Wackymacs 17:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but OS X was, indeed, released in 1999! Mac OS X Server 1.0 was released on March 16, 1999. Yes, that's right. The UNIX-based OS X was indeed available as a server product a full two years before the desktop version was released. This release did not yet have 'Aqua', and looked more like the older Mac OS. But it was OS X. And note that it was indeed "OS X Server 1.0", not "10.0". 10.0 came out in 2001 at the same time as the desktop release of OS X 10.0. Server 10.0 was 'Aquafied' just like the desktop version. Ehurtley 20:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Relevance of PowerPC

Recently the article has gone from describing the Macintosh as "a line of PowerPC-based personal computers designed, developed, manufactured and marketed by Apple Computer, Inc." to referring the "current Macintosh line" (not all Macs were PowerPC-based - true, but is this a historical article or a current article?) as consisting of "PowerPC-based desktops, notebooks, and server."

'But hang on a second,' reminds a contributor, 'the Xservre RAID doesn't contain a PowerPC chip.' OK, so now the Xserve RAID "is not PowerPC based".

Should the opening section refer to the PowerPC at all? Is this a relevant fact to the Macintosh? Well, it may be at the moment - but not for much longer. As Steve Jobs asid at WWDC 2005, the heart & soul of the Mac is in the operating system - not the processor.

What to do?

Jsephton 20/9/2005

  • I don't think it's relevant enough to be in the introdution/leading section of the article, it would be better placed in another section of the article, and I think it would be logical to place it under a specific Hardware section, which can talk about both the 68k, PPC and also the x86 architectures that the Mac has or will use. — Wackymacs 07:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • thanks for your input. as you can probably tell, i'm keen on doing a tidy-up for this article Jsephton
  • Well, where do you draw the line between 'Macintosh' and just 'Apple product'? For example, the Xserve and Xserve RAID don't even have 'Macintosh' or 'Mac' in their names. And no Apple page on either ever calls them a Mac. They are 'Apple Server Solutions'... (I, for one, consider the Xserve to be a 'Mac', and the Xserve RAID to be an accessory, in the same line as external hard drives, scanners, printers, and monitors. I'm in favor of keeping the current definition of 'a line of personal computers designed, developed, manufactured and marketed by Apple Computer.' Ehurtley 20:01, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • the xserve raid is not a computer, or am i wrong? I have always considered it a misnomer. It is not an Xserve with a RAID disk array, it is merely the raid disk array itself, right?

Earlopogous 00:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope... the Xserve RAID is just a bunch of HDDs in RAID under unified controllers. And as for Steve Jobs saying that it isn't the the processor but the OS which makes the Mac, well nobody likes him anyway. Plus, he's the guy that has been touting the PowerPC since its introduction in 1994.. up to and until the recent Intel announcment, showing how much faster the G5 is. Then he started lying about power consumption problems on the PowerPC compared to the Intel chips, which anyone with a brain can see is a huge lie... have you LOOKED at the dual-core Pentium 4s? They take an absurdly large amount of power. Granted, the Duo is nice, but it shouldn't be in a Mac. At least, not the iMac. Dan 18:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry, that was me that removed the bottom of the page, by accident68.209.19.232 21:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Citation Needed

As Sdedeo has pointed out we need citations on several of our facts in the marketshare area. TDS (talk • contribs) 05:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks TDS; yes, this would be very useful to have. Estimates vary a great deal. Sdedeo 09:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I have added three sources for the market share/installed base information. They are in the References section. — Wackymacs 19:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

labels for ibooks

This is a minor issue, but in the timeline of macintosh computer lines the ibook labels are not the normal names. ibook should be "clamshell ibook", and white ibook is generally refered to as "dual usb ibook." I do not know how to edit that chart though. Can someone else change it, or tell me why it is that way? Earlopogous 00:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

That's because the timeline is already very cramped, and "Clamshell iBook" is too long for the space it has, and also because I think it is best to note the "official" names of the products unless they have none - the clamshell was initially only known as the iBook, and "Dual USB iBook" or "iBook (Dual USB)" has two drawbacks: The term is not clearly understood outside the Macintosh community, while "iBook (white)" (I've changed it a bit) is clear to anyone who's ever seen the two. Also, the iBook (Dual USB) name is sometimes used only for the very first model of the white iBook series, and that timeline section includes others (for example, the October 2001 revision of the iBook is called the "Late 2001 iBook" in my references, but it's still a white G3 iBook). As a side note, the timelines are not as hard to change as they look, I've now edited it so that the section edit link above it goes to the template itself. Just skip the definitions at the beginning, all lables and links work just like they do in normal MediaWiki markup (but watch out, there are no red links in timelines, the link is blue whether the target exists or not). I'm also copying this to Template talk:Timeline of Macintosh models. -- grm_wnr Esc 22:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Dell Picture

Is this really important to the article? Personally, I think this is straddling the POV line... Comments? If no one disagrees I will remove it in a few days. t-bte288-c 20:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

i agree that this image should be deleted. --Yoasif 20:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

aesthetic case

From the article:

Starting mainly with the iMac G3, Apple also introduced the concept of an aesthetic case for their computers. Prior to the iMac, most computers were housed in an effective yet lackluster beige case. Apple pioneered colorful housings in the late 1990s, and has now moved on to white plastic and metal finishes. And continuing with the portability theme, all Macintosh computers are very small when compared to competitor's models. Examples include the Mac mini, quite arguably one of the smallest computers of all time, and the iMac G5, with the entire computer fitting in a two-inch screen.

first of all, i'd say most macs, even before the imac came out were generally a lot better looking and better put together than the mass majority of pc products. but even that seems to a bit POV.

also, this is filed under "effects on the tech industry"... i don't think that there can be a clear case made that apple has made any effect on the tech industry with their smaller and "prettier" components. in fact, other manufacturers tend to ridicule apple (dell) and instead maintain that lower price is better than flashy glitz.

if anything, this should be put in a new section on design of hardware, so that other mentions can be made a (like the reference to snow white in the article, frogdesign, twentieth century mac, etc. ) --Yoasif 20:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... I'm need to add a Cult of the mac section as per the to do list above; I'll trim this down and have this be what mac users say is so good about the macs, along with other stuff, and we'll also give the "money over size" argument from a PC standpoint. --HereToHelp (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Legal actions brought by and against apple mac

would it be possible to write a summary of the legal proceedings brought by competitors of Apple Mac and law suites that the company has recieved. i know microsoft bashing is in but apple mac has also done it's own share of unscrupuless dealings.

You mean stuff like the dispute over the trademark 'Macintosh' from McIntosh and when Apple sued Digital Research over GEM? I also remember when Apple sued eMachines or someone for making a PC only weeks after the iMac was released that looked exactly like it. — Wackymacs 15:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
There are lots. How do you decide what to include on the main Mac page? How about someone just starts a 'Legal action against Apple Computers' page?  :-p Dont' forget Apple Corps lawsuits. (Apple Corps is the Beatles publishing arm, and sued Apple multiple times over the use of the name Apple, most recently when Apple used the domain name 'applemusic.com' for their iPod+iTunes combo. Heck, one of the Mac's original system sounds is rumored to get its name from the legal trouble with Apple Corps. (Sosumi, pronounced 'So Sue Me')
That's all covered in the Apple Computer article, and there's alink. However, if we want to create a page combining the subject mattaer of both sections, and have links, I'm not completely opposed.--HereToHelp (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

{{currentmacs}}

Is there any good reason why this has to be a template apart from the facts that it's moderately complicated table data? It isn't used in other articles and I see little reason why it should. That wouldn't be so bad (at least for me), but what really irritates me is that it contains {{ref}}s that point to {{note}}s in this article. If nobody speaks up, I'm going to subst: it in again. -- grm_wnr Esc 04:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I only loosely grasp the concept of template substitution, but it sounds okay to me. The one issue is: will this cause the length to go up? We're already fighting an uphill battle against the length with the FAC nom.--HereToHelp (talk) 13:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Substitution just means making the template contents a proper permanent part of the article, which will of course make the article even longer (by about 3KB). But on the other hand, it's pretty, erm, unwise to try to make an article shorter by transferring contents to templates, which is frowned upon ("Templates should not masquerade as article content in the main article namespace; instead, place the text directly into the article", as Wikipedia:Template namespace states) - anyway, the reason for opposing a FAC should be length (which this wouldn't change), not file size in kilobytes. Should I list {{currentmacs}} on WP:TFD, it is near certain that it would be deleted, but we can spare us that discussion (well, I'll probably put it on TFD eventually anyway, but only after we have discussed this here). Also, since this article's size is mushrooming again, it will not make that much of a difference. Note that the other big template in this article, {{Timeline of Macintosh models}}, is an exception to the rule above - since timelines have a pretty complicated syntax, it is a common and recommended practice to put them in templates. -- grm_wnr Esc 20:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
I see. Can't they put that on the help page?
Go ahead and put the subst: tag on it. As for the length, it's very easy to hit the "edit this page" button, see if it tells you the length, and presto, rather than — what? take a ruler to the computer screen (which I have done on occasion)? --HereToHelp (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
This is a bit off-topic, but I've always felt the various length limits are overly legalistic in any case. An article is too long when it feels to long, not when it reaches some arbitrary number of characters. But that's just my opinion. Anyway, the template's substed in now. I'm keeping it around for a few days in case someone still has complaints, but after that I'll TFD it. -- grm_wnr Esc 04:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree on both accounts.--HereToHelp (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I went for a different approach as to keep TFD out of the game and preserve the history: Template:currentmacs has been moved to Current Macintosh models and then redirected to Apple Macintosh, and the resulting redirect at Template:currentmacs was deleted. -- grm_wnr Esc 21:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

backward compatibility

Is any model of the Macintosh backward-compatible with Apple II software? (unsigned comment from anon)

Probably not. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
No, but you can run emulator programs do accomplish the same thing.(unsigned comment from anon)
At one point in time you could get an Apple IIe Card for the LC series. You could hook up an external floppy drive and run Apple II software natively. That was 15 years ago; nothing current can natively run Apple II software. ⇒ BRossow T/C 19:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mac_(computer)/Archive_2&oldid=1114191424"