This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
MacBook (2006–2012) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
![]() | MacBook (2006–2012) has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is no mention of audio at all in this article, how come? What are the audio capabilities of these computers, is there any difference between models?
All MacBook models have a 3.5mm minijack audio out, my MacBook2,1 also has a 3.5 mm audio in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.49.206.217 ( talk) 15:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
The MacBook 5.1 (The aluminium Unibody Model released 14 october 2008) has also a Combined optical digital input/analog line in (minijack) and a Combined optical digital output/analog line out (minijack) according to the official specifications from Apple which can be found here: http://support.apple.com/kb/SP500 . I don't know the audio capabilities of the earlier or later MacBook models. Pineapple216 ( talk) 18:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
When you have large number of "anonymous opinions" commenting on an item and greatly contradicting the professional review scores, it has ramifications. Political "exit polls" are not vastly different from this, but used by professional news organizations all the time. I note there is a mention of the inferior quality of the LCD monitor.
So, the question is not that this subject be added, but what is correct wiki protocol. --
Flightsoffancy (
talk)
23:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Who wrote that directly transcluded navigation box at the bottom of the page? Is it necessary? Should it be a template/what is trying to be accomplished? ~ Paul T +/ C 23:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Should this article observe Apple's apparent naming convention when referring to its products, to exclude "the" from subjects, such as "MacBook is made of Aluminum" or "Many people use MacBook for video editing"? I believe the article for iPhone uses this naming convention. Jagun Talk Contribs 02:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
How odd, if I look up the model number listed under the 'newest' polycarbonate, MB466LL/A, I get the 2.0ghz Macbook Al instead. There was no Polycarbonate released on Oct 14, 2008, however I believe it was still available for purchase. -- TIB ( talk) 00:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
This needs to be clarified and added. I'm not wikiliterate enough to do it without screwing the article up. The article states DDR2, but the Apple site says DDR3 now, and I think the White one has 667 and the aluminum the 1000 or something MHz. Thanks see http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/macbook
WHOOPS I WAS WRONG, i thought the white macbook graph was reflecting both macbooks...sorry!!!!!!
I have a white MacBook with the model designation A1181 stamped into its underside, but there is no mention of this model in the article. If this is an omission, FYI. If not, and there is a different model number convention being used in the article in contrast with what Apple's using, could someone explain how the MB designations in the article translate to the designations on the body of the MacBook? IvyGold ( talk) 03:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh. Still, something's not adding up. Here's a PC Review article reviewing an "Apple Macbook A1181": http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/product/54394/review/macbook_a1181.html Thank you for your response, but I'm still confused. Is the reviewer similarly mistaken? Regardless, I'm hitting a genius bar this week and will find out what's going on. Thank you for your time, though -- seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IvyGold ( talk • contribs) 06:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
System Profiler
reports the Model Identifier as Macbook 5,2 (sudo dmidecode -s system-product-name
in Linux) which seems to be an easy way of identifying them (except in Windows).
150.101.52.48 (
talk)
00:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)I would like to nominate this article for A-Class. I need two supports from two uninvolved editors. - Sk8er5000 ( talk) 05:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Nominated by: Sk8er5000 ( talk) 05:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Support (1): — neuro (talk) (review), are lowendmac.com and faqintosh.com reliable, though (I am genuinely asking, not saying they aren't)? — neuro (talk) (review) 14:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Support (2): a bit late, but better than never. Will promote. Airplaneman ✈ 02:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I had a chat with an online Apple expert (transcript here) and she said that the MacBook is only capable of displaying 6 bits per channel, which is 262,144 colors, less than the "millions of colors" stated on the MacBook specs page. Kevin chen2003 ( talk) 00:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
http://peewaiweb.free.fr/ http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2008/03/apple-quietly-settles-lawsuit-over-dithered-laptop-displays.ars http://www.raoulpop.com/2008/apple-still-not-transparent-about-its-hardware-specs/ And of course, Google: http://www.google.com/search?q=macbook+dithering Kevin chen2003 ( talk) 01:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe, if anybody knows, we can put the future releases for this model (does Apple announce it or is it a surprise?). When is the new one coming out? I would think it would be this summer.-- Airplaneman ( talk) 22:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I recommend we replace the unibody in the infobox with the White as the MacBook is now the White model. Aside from the one unibody release, they've all been plastic. Nja 247 20:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
We are thinking of purchasing last year's 2009 version Macbook. We did hear that the Macbook eventually has some wear and tear/chipping on the palm rest due to the design. Anyone else experience this? Does applecare cover to fix this? Thanx to all who respond! 74.75.62.49 ( talk) 19:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC) The Fick Family
The supposed unibody MacBook picture is actually a photo of a MacBook Pro.
Joinuseveryweek (
talk)
01:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
This looks like an interesting one. It should be possible to put 8 GB of RAM (2 4 GB DIMMs) in the NVidia based 9400M white MacBook, the aluminium unibody MacBook and the two plastic polycarbonate MacBooks. However, I can't find any references that OS X supports this (It does, trust me!). I've found a reference from NVidia saying that the system theoretically supports it but OS X doesn't and have added this to the article. I also know from forums that the aluminium unibody MacBook didn't support this until a firmware update came out. The problem is; the firmware update doesn't state it adds this support (I'm very sure it is this one). Since it came out (and plenty of people on macrumors reported that 8 GB works here onwards, but it's a forum, so not a reliable source, with links to other non-reliable sources...), myself and two colleagues have successfully upgraded our MacBooks to 8 GB, and it works nicely (three more non-reliable sources right here :) ).
It should also be possible to put 8 GB of RAM in the unibody and non-unibody MCP79 based white macbooks - whether apple has enabled this is another question. SmackEater ( talk) 07:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Aha - found a second ref on OWC's blog (expert in the field) here. So have updated the article accordingly. SmackEater ( talk) 19:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Jonathan Ive, the designer behind all the modern Apple devices hasn't been mentioned in any one of the articles associated with the Apple devices he created, you could argue that Ive is the reason Apple is so famous today, I can only assume it's either due to ignorance or deliberate. Twobells ( talk)
I have a MacBook which, according to the specs (cpu, ram, gpu, hdd), is a "Early 2009 (white)". Its Model identifier is MacBook5,2 and not, as it was written, 5,1. I've fixed that.
I also have the alluminium MacBook and I confirm that one is a 5,1 instead.
I've no idea about the "Mid 2009", listed as 5,2 too.
-- Lo'oris ( talk) 15:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
My 3.1 Macbook got a FSB go 667 Mhz and I bought it the Saturday the unibody MB launched. You yould fix it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.216.7 ( talk) 19:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I read it at MacRumors that Apple has now stopped distribution to educational institutions as well. Could anybody confirm this, please? — User:WikiPanic ( talk) 00:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I always thought that "unibody" refers to the unique one-piece aluminum case of the 2008 MacBook. I have never heard the later polycarbonate case called a "unibody" case until I went shopping for an aluminum unibody MacBook on eBay.
Some eBay sellers, knowing that second hand aluminum unibody macBooks sell for a premium, are calling the polycarbonate MacBooks "Unibody MacBooks." Notably, they do not list these computers as "plastic unibody" or "polycarbonate unibody," and the item descriptions do not warn the shopper that these machines are NOT "aluminum unibody" machines. Let the buyer beware.
To my knowledge, there is nothing special about the MacBook polycarbonate case. As far as I know, any injection-molded plastic case could fairly be called a "unibody" case. By comparison the aluminum unibody case for the MacBook was special indeed, and this kind of case is still used in the MacBook pro. To my knowledge, Apple has never referred to the polycarbonate case for the MacBook as a "unibody" case.
By comparison, the Macbook pro article on wikipedia does not call the polycarbonate case a "unibody" case. I suspect that eBay sellers might be manipulating this article to justify their mis-representation of their merchandise.
I'm not very skilled at Wikipedia editing. I suggest that others who take an interest in this topic agree to standard terminology: "unibody case" or "aluminum unibody case" for the 2008 MacBook and "polycarbonate case" for the later MacBooks. 69.108.174.223 ( talk) 00:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Someone added a paragraph on the new 2015 MacBook laptop, then someone else added a split tag, suggesting the new 2015 MacBook should get it own article, feeling that it was really the start of a new line of laptops, rather a revival of the old line. Since then it appears someone just went ahead and split the article. I'm not so sure that that was the best course of action. I'm not truly convinced that the new 2015 Macbook is really so much different then the old MacBook series to warrant a separate article. My reasoning is as follows:
So does anyone have any convincing arguments as to why the New MacBook (2015) should not simply be included in this article rather then having it's own article? If not, then I say merge it back into this article. -- 50.152.139.176 ( talk) 18:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
My argument is as follows: (but I've not changed my view)
The 2015 MacBook (8,1) is, in my eyes, a new class of laptop for Apple whereas the older MacBooks (1,1 to 7,1) were budget models of MacBook Pros. The 2015 MacBook differs in looks, technology, features, marketing and pricing. I don't believe that it is a successor, simply reusing the same name. I don't think that the polycarbonate Macbook has a successor. The closest is the Macbook Air as this is now Apple's cheapest laptop.
If Apple were to reuse the name iBook for a dedicated eBook reader I don't think that any of us would suggest merging its article with the laptop iBook article. I see this as the same thing. It is a completely different laptop, being sold to a different market at a different price-point. It just happens to have the same name.
I suggest this to something that reflects its name and years of sale (I understand that there is some debate about this) and creating a page called "Macbook" that redirects to the latest product that uses the name (technology is transient and people are generally interested in what they can use and buy). I believe that both articles should have a link to each other below the title to ensure that those that end up on the wrong article can find their way to the one that they want.
St3f (
talk)
09:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)St3f
The result of the move request was: not moved. Number 5 7 16:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
MacBook → MacBook (2011 and earlier), MacBook (2015 version) → MacBook – There are now two articles about products with the same name: this one and MacBook (2015 version). The merger discussion has not lead to a consensus yet. Regardless of the outcome, I argue that the latter article should in any case become the primary topic associated with this lemma. My main argument is that users will come to expect to find the 2015 MacBook when they search for MacBook, rather than a list of discontinued models. Some discussion participants have supported this proposal. --Relisted. George Ho ( talk) 19:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC) — Totie ( talk) 21:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Considering that the merge/split discussion was recently closed as no-consensus and the articles are likely to stay split for now; how about further splitting out the original ( sometimes referred to as discrete, though not sure that is a usable disambiguator ) and unibody models and leave the main article either as a brand over or a disambiguation page? I'd also recommended that the 2015 article be renamed "MacBook (retina)". PaleAqua ( talk) 18:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on MacBook. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
There are ongoing disputes at the MacKeeper article. It could use more editors. Thanks. Adoring nanny ( talk) 13:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that this article should avoid talking about the 12-inch MacBook except for pointing out the differences. In section "criticisms and defects", there's a paragraph talking about the defect of the butterfly machinism which is totally not related to the "MacBook" in this article. Nskernel ( talk) 07:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: move as proposed. ( closed by non-admin page mover) feminist ( talk) 05:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
– As noted in the previous move discussion, this article is not the primary topic for the brand name "MacBook", and the use of the device size to identify the current MacBook line is unsatisfactory. Similar articles, like Power Mac and Microsoft Surface, are about the device families, rather than specific models or lines. I've opted to use the year ranges to disambiguate the two lines, since there are multiple distinguishing physical features of each line which would probably nevertheless be less meaningful as disambiguators to many readers. However, I would not be against using different disambiguators for those two articles (suggestions welcome). To prevent links from being broken I would move two of the articles first and remove any remaining links to MacBook (which would have become a redirect to be deleted). Jc86035 ( talk) 16:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I'd like opinions on how to categorize the "generations" in this article. Personally I think that, should we mention generations at all, what makes most sense by far is:
as those are the three sections of the article. If we were to consider any of those the "same generation" then it would only make sense for them to be the same section, which thinking about it it really doesn't. They're all very distinct designs with clear differences between them. If anything it would make more sense imo to group the two Unibodies, as they're somewhat similar (though I still don't like that) but 2601:647:5000:fb0:256b:b0fd:50c8:3304 has been insisting on grouping Aluminum Unibody with Polycarbonate as "1st generation", which I personally find rather confusing.
I attempted to make a neutral change by simply removing any reference to a "generation" and honestly I think I prefer that to anything else actually as Apple never officially grouped these in generations anyways, but 2601:647:5000:fb0:256b:b0fd:50c8:3304 has been reverting any attempt to change it or even compromise.
So my current opinion is no mention of generations, with 3 separate as a second choice.
Update: I think the current state of the article is tolerable so I'm not going to revert your edit, 2601:647:5000:fb0:9d94:da0b:de78:27e5, since you seem oddly passionate about this however I still think it would read better to not talk about "generations" at all. It's perfectly normal for a company (including Apple) to release a new generation of a product and continue selling the old one alongside it. Pk11 ( talk) 06:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
MacBook (2006–2012) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
![]() | MacBook (2006–2012) has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There is no mention of audio at all in this article, how come? What are the audio capabilities of these computers, is there any difference between models?
All MacBook models have a 3.5mm minijack audio out, my MacBook2,1 also has a 3.5 mm audio in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.49.206.217 ( talk) 15:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
The MacBook 5.1 (The aluminium Unibody Model released 14 october 2008) has also a Combined optical digital input/analog line in (minijack) and a Combined optical digital output/analog line out (minijack) according to the official specifications from Apple which can be found here: http://support.apple.com/kb/SP500 . I don't know the audio capabilities of the earlier or later MacBook models. Pineapple216 ( talk) 18:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
When you have large number of "anonymous opinions" commenting on an item and greatly contradicting the professional review scores, it has ramifications. Political "exit polls" are not vastly different from this, but used by professional news organizations all the time. I note there is a mention of the inferior quality of the LCD monitor.
So, the question is not that this subject be added, but what is correct wiki protocol. --
Flightsoffancy (
talk)
23:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Who wrote that directly transcluded navigation box at the bottom of the page? Is it necessary? Should it be a template/what is trying to be accomplished? ~ Paul T +/ C 23:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Should this article observe Apple's apparent naming convention when referring to its products, to exclude "the" from subjects, such as "MacBook is made of Aluminum" or "Many people use MacBook for video editing"? I believe the article for iPhone uses this naming convention. Jagun Talk Contribs 02:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
How odd, if I look up the model number listed under the 'newest' polycarbonate, MB466LL/A, I get the 2.0ghz Macbook Al instead. There was no Polycarbonate released on Oct 14, 2008, however I believe it was still available for purchase. -- TIB ( talk) 00:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
This needs to be clarified and added. I'm not wikiliterate enough to do it without screwing the article up. The article states DDR2, but the Apple site says DDR3 now, and I think the White one has 667 and the aluminum the 1000 or something MHz. Thanks see http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/macbook
WHOOPS I WAS WRONG, i thought the white macbook graph was reflecting both macbooks...sorry!!!!!!
I have a white MacBook with the model designation A1181 stamped into its underside, but there is no mention of this model in the article. If this is an omission, FYI. If not, and there is a different model number convention being used in the article in contrast with what Apple's using, could someone explain how the MB designations in the article translate to the designations on the body of the MacBook? IvyGold ( talk) 03:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Oh. Still, something's not adding up. Here's a PC Review article reviewing an "Apple Macbook A1181": http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/product/54394/review/macbook_a1181.html Thank you for your response, but I'm still confused. Is the reviewer similarly mistaken? Regardless, I'm hitting a genius bar this week and will find out what's going on. Thank you for your time, though -- seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IvyGold ( talk • contribs) 06:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
System Profiler
reports the Model Identifier as Macbook 5,2 (sudo dmidecode -s system-product-name
in Linux) which seems to be an easy way of identifying them (except in Windows).
150.101.52.48 (
talk)
00:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)I would like to nominate this article for A-Class. I need two supports from two uninvolved editors. - Sk8er5000 ( talk) 05:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Nominated by: Sk8er5000 ( talk) 05:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Support (1): — neuro (talk) (review), are lowendmac.com and faqintosh.com reliable, though (I am genuinely asking, not saying they aren't)? — neuro (talk) (review) 14:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Support (2): a bit late, but better than never. Will promote. Airplaneman ✈ 02:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I had a chat with an online Apple expert (transcript here) and she said that the MacBook is only capable of displaying 6 bits per channel, which is 262,144 colors, less than the "millions of colors" stated on the MacBook specs page. Kevin chen2003 ( talk) 00:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
http://peewaiweb.free.fr/ http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2008/03/apple-quietly-settles-lawsuit-over-dithered-laptop-displays.ars http://www.raoulpop.com/2008/apple-still-not-transparent-about-its-hardware-specs/ And of course, Google: http://www.google.com/search?q=macbook+dithering Kevin chen2003 ( talk) 01:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Maybe, if anybody knows, we can put the future releases for this model (does Apple announce it or is it a surprise?). When is the new one coming out? I would think it would be this summer.-- Airplaneman ( talk) 22:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I recommend we replace the unibody in the infobox with the White as the MacBook is now the White model. Aside from the one unibody release, they've all been plastic. Nja 247 20:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
We are thinking of purchasing last year's 2009 version Macbook. We did hear that the Macbook eventually has some wear and tear/chipping on the palm rest due to the design. Anyone else experience this? Does applecare cover to fix this? Thanx to all who respond! 74.75.62.49 ( talk) 19:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC) The Fick Family
The supposed unibody MacBook picture is actually a photo of a MacBook Pro.
Joinuseveryweek (
talk)
01:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
This looks like an interesting one. It should be possible to put 8 GB of RAM (2 4 GB DIMMs) in the NVidia based 9400M white MacBook, the aluminium unibody MacBook and the two plastic polycarbonate MacBooks. However, I can't find any references that OS X supports this (It does, trust me!). I've found a reference from NVidia saying that the system theoretically supports it but OS X doesn't and have added this to the article. I also know from forums that the aluminium unibody MacBook didn't support this until a firmware update came out. The problem is; the firmware update doesn't state it adds this support (I'm very sure it is this one). Since it came out (and plenty of people on macrumors reported that 8 GB works here onwards, but it's a forum, so not a reliable source, with links to other non-reliable sources...), myself and two colleagues have successfully upgraded our MacBooks to 8 GB, and it works nicely (three more non-reliable sources right here :) ).
It should also be possible to put 8 GB of RAM in the unibody and non-unibody MCP79 based white macbooks - whether apple has enabled this is another question. SmackEater ( talk) 07:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Aha - found a second ref on OWC's blog (expert in the field) here. So have updated the article accordingly. SmackEater ( talk) 19:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Jonathan Ive, the designer behind all the modern Apple devices hasn't been mentioned in any one of the articles associated with the Apple devices he created, you could argue that Ive is the reason Apple is so famous today, I can only assume it's either due to ignorance or deliberate. Twobells ( talk)
I have a MacBook which, according to the specs (cpu, ram, gpu, hdd), is a "Early 2009 (white)". Its Model identifier is MacBook5,2 and not, as it was written, 5,1. I've fixed that.
I also have the alluminium MacBook and I confirm that one is a 5,1 instead.
I've no idea about the "Mid 2009", listed as 5,2 too.
-- Lo'oris ( talk) 15:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
My 3.1 Macbook got a FSB go 667 Mhz and I bought it the Saturday the unibody MB launched. You yould fix it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.216.7 ( talk) 19:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I read it at MacRumors that Apple has now stopped distribution to educational institutions as well. Could anybody confirm this, please? — User:WikiPanic ( talk) 00:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I always thought that "unibody" refers to the unique one-piece aluminum case of the 2008 MacBook. I have never heard the later polycarbonate case called a "unibody" case until I went shopping for an aluminum unibody MacBook on eBay.
Some eBay sellers, knowing that second hand aluminum unibody macBooks sell for a premium, are calling the polycarbonate MacBooks "Unibody MacBooks." Notably, they do not list these computers as "plastic unibody" or "polycarbonate unibody," and the item descriptions do not warn the shopper that these machines are NOT "aluminum unibody" machines. Let the buyer beware.
To my knowledge, there is nothing special about the MacBook polycarbonate case. As far as I know, any injection-molded plastic case could fairly be called a "unibody" case. By comparison the aluminum unibody case for the MacBook was special indeed, and this kind of case is still used in the MacBook pro. To my knowledge, Apple has never referred to the polycarbonate case for the MacBook as a "unibody" case.
By comparison, the Macbook pro article on wikipedia does not call the polycarbonate case a "unibody" case. I suspect that eBay sellers might be manipulating this article to justify their mis-representation of their merchandise.
I'm not very skilled at Wikipedia editing. I suggest that others who take an interest in this topic agree to standard terminology: "unibody case" or "aluminum unibody case" for the 2008 MacBook and "polycarbonate case" for the later MacBooks. 69.108.174.223 ( talk) 00:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Someone added a paragraph on the new 2015 MacBook laptop, then someone else added a split tag, suggesting the new 2015 MacBook should get it own article, feeling that it was really the start of a new line of laptops, rather a revival of the old line. Since then it appears someone just went ahead and split the article. I'm not so sure that that was the best course of action. I'm not truly convinced that the new 2015 Macbook is really so much different then the old MacBook series to warrant a separate article. My reasoning is as follows:
So does anyone have any convincing arguments as to why the New MacBook (2015) should not simply be included in this article rather then having it's own article? If not, then I say merge it back into this article. -- 50.152.139.176 ( talk) 18:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
My argument is as follows: (but I've not changed my view)
The 2015 MacBook (8,1) is, in my eyes, a new class of laptop for Apple whereas the older MacBooks (1,1 to 7,1) were budget models of MacBook Pros. The 2015 MacBook differs in looks, technology, features, marketing and pricing. I don't believe that it is a successor, simply reusing the same name. I don't think that the polycarbonate Macbook has a successor. The closest is the Macbook Air as this is now Apple's cheapest laptop.
If Apple were to reuse the name iBook for a dedicated eBook reader I don't think that any of us would suggest merging its article with the laptop iBook article. I see this as the same thing. It is a completely different laptop, being sold to a different market at a different price-point. It just happens to have the same name.
I suggest this to something that reflects its name and years of sale (I understand that there is some debate about this) and creating a page called "Macbook" that redirects to the latest product that uses the name (technology is transient and people are generally interested in what they can use and buy). I believe that both articles should have a link to each other below the title to ensure that those that end up on the wrong article can find their way to the one that they want.
St3f (
talk)
09:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)St3f
The result of the move request was: not moved. Number 5 7 16:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
MacBook → MacBook (2011 and earlier), MacBook (2015 version) → MacBook – There are now two articles about products with the same name: this one and MacBook (2015 version). The merger discussion has not lead to a consensus yet. Regardless of the outcome, I argue that the latter article should in any case become the primary topic associated with this lemma. My main argument is that users will come to expect to find the 2015 MacBook when they search for MacBook, rather than a list of discontinued models. Some discussion participants have supported this proposal. --Relisted. George Ho ( talk) 19:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC) — Totie ( talk) 21:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Considering that the merge/split discussion was recently closed as no-consensus and the articles are likely to stay split for now; how about further splitting out the original ( sometimes referred to as discrete, though not sure that is a usable disambiguator ) and unibody models and leave the main article either as a brand over or a disambiguation page? I'd also recommended that the 2015 article be renamed "MacBook (retina)". PaleAqua ( talk) 18:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on MacBook. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 09:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
There are ongoing disputes at the MacKeeper article. It could use more editors. Thanks. Adoring nanny ( talk) 13:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that this article should avoid talking about the 12-inch MacBook except for pointing out the differences. In section "criticisms and defects", there's a paragraph talking about the defect of the butterfly machinism which is totally not related to the "MacBook" in this article. Nskernel ( talk) 07:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: move as proposed. ( closed by non-admin page mover) feminist ( talk) 05:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
– As noted in the previous move discussion, this article is not the primary topic for the brand name "MacBook", and the use of the device size to identify the current MacBook line is unsatisfactory. Similar articles, like Power Mac and Microsoft Surface, are about the device families, rather than specific models or lines. I've opted to use the year ranges to disambiguate the two lines, since there are multiple distinguishing physical features of each line which would probably nevertheless be less meaningful as disambiguators to many readers. However, I would not be against using different disambiguators for those two articles (suggestions welcome). To prevent links from being broken I would move two of the articles first and remove any remaining links to MacBook (which would have become a redirect to be deleted). Jc86035 ( talk) 16:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I'd like opinions on how to categorize the "generations" in this article. Personally I think that, should we mention generations at all, what makes most sense by far is:
as those are the three sections of the article. If we were to consider any of those the "same generation" then it would only make sense for them to be the same section, which thinking about it it really doesn't. They're all very distinct designs with clear differences between them. If anything it would make more sense imo to group the two Unibodies, as they're somewhat similar (though I still don't like that) but 2601:647:5000:fb0:256b:b0fd:50c8:3304 has been insisting on grouping Aluminum Unibody with Polycarbonate as "1st generation", which I personally find rather confusing.
I attempted to make a neutral change by simply removing any reference to a "generation" and honestly I think I prefer that to anything else actually as Apple never officially grouped these in generations anyways, but 2601:647:5000:fb0:256b:b0fd:50c8:3304 has been reverting any attempt to change it or even compromise.
So my current opinion is no mention of generations, with 3 separate as a second choice.
Update: I think the current state of the article is tolerable so I'm not going to revert your edit, 2601:647:5000:fb0:9d94:da0b:de78:27e5, since you seem oddly passionate about this however I still think it would read better to not talk about "generations" at all. It's perfectly normal for a company (including Apple) to release a new generation of a product and continue selling the old one alongside it. Pk11 ( talk) 06:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)