![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
This is Archive 2, which cover discussions which began in 2007.
At the top of the article it says the MacBook is manufactured by Asus. The sitation leads to a news site, and the article is pretty old (from before the MacBook had a name, they call it an iBook) It seems kinda strange, because Apple manufactured all their other hardware. Could someone check this out? My MacBook says designed by Apple in California, assembled in China -- the Patman of Wiki 02:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually Apple does not manufacture all their hardware. For example, Foxconn makes the Mac Mini and iPods for Apple. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn, (Read the first 4 results from here) http://www.google.com/search?q=ipods+foxconn&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
As for Asus/Asustek production of Macbooks, here are much better sources: http://www.digitimes.com/Backgrounders/ArtReview.asp?datePublish=2007/02/15&pages=PD&seq=210, http://www.emsnow.com/newsarchives/archivedetails.cfm?ID=13659, http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/04/04/asus_macbook_contract/, http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/06/10/10/foxconn_lands_core_2_duo_macbook_orders_from_apple.html, http://news.softpedia.com/news/Apple-Team-To-Supervise-MacBook-Production-at-Asustek-Factory-24214.shtml, http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/06/08/17/apple_shopping_for_third_notebook_manufacturer.html/ Apple, like most other major brand companies, outsources manufacturing. The reason for the iBook reference in the initial source was because anyone who noticed the date would realize that it was shortly before Apple revealed the then-new MacBook line. The 13.3" wide-screen corroborates the story. Never-the-less newer links have been provided here that prove that Foxconn and Asus now produce the Macbook and so I've reverted it back. -- 72.229.114.117 13:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I do see your point, and if Wikipedia weren't an encyclopedia I'd say add the information. However it is an encyclopedia, therefore articles about speculation and rumours cannot be considered as a verifiable source. I suppose, in regards to the iPod article, the name of the manufacturer only came up due to the suspicion of unethical labour violations. However in that example, there was some acknowledgement by Apple and more than a casual link was shown to have existed between the two companies in regards to the iPod, and further, the story was covered by major media outlets. Your work is certainly appreciated, and again I see your point, but again the information needs to be relevant and more than speculative to be included on an article on an encyclopedia. And further this article was worked on extensively in the past to ensure its quality to make it a "good article" and it is possible the Wikipedia Mac project team will try to get this article as a featured article and therefore that quality must be maintained. Cheers. Nja247 ( talk • contribs) 20:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I stumbled across 2 websites on Digg, one for Black MacBook and one for White MacBook, they seem to be repositories with upgrade guides and galleries.
There seems to be an edit war in progress on the use of binary prefixes in this article and other Macs. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) on the question of whether the new prefixes (MiB, GiB, ...) should be used in articles about consumer products where the manufacturer doesn't use them.-- agr 11:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I seem to recall that the last time you and I had a disagreement was over Kreider's Law. At that time you strongly objected to Wikipedia being used to promote new terminology that was not in wide use elsewhere. That is exactly what is going on here. The personal computer industry does not use these prefixes. Articles about the industry should not be required to convert to them.-- agr 16:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The majority of reliable sources for this article do not use binary prefixes. If you have any thoughts/opinions then this specific topic is being discussed on the following talk page Manual of Style (dates and numbers) in the sections to do with "binary prefixes". Fnagaton 10:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm moving this piece of text here to the talk page because it's not sourced and an anon added a bit of text disputing it. Since it doesn't make sense for the article to contradict itself like this, I'm moving it here so it can be discussed.
— Cleared as filed. 05:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to list references to the MacBook in pop culture? Most of the entries on the list are completely irrelevant... lots of artists use Macs, so why only list Armin Van Buuren? "Chicken Little" came out in 2005, a year before the MacBook, so it's really spoofing the iBook. In addition, listing every music video or TV show that a product appears in seems pretty un-encylopedic, and I haven't seen it done in many other articles. Should we even bother keeping this section? - seinman 13:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the article meets all of the criteria. Being a GA reviewer myself (though I've been too busy the last month to do any reviews) I believe it will pass. Though, I've been known to be wrong. The reasons for failure last time are included in the 2006 archive. Nja247 ( talk • contribs) 12:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, great suggestions BTW.
Let me know what you think thus far. Aside from the non-use of tables where appropriate and the fact tag, I don't see anything barring this article from passing GA. Again, I could use help on a lead into the comparison section and help with the proposed reception section. While they are not requirements for a GA, they were excellent suggestion and would make the article better. Nja247 ( talk • contribs) 13:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Please include average power consumption (watts) in computer articles.- 69.87.199.199 13:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
With the 3rd generation now out, the specifications table isn't really suitable anymore. I propose to subdivide the three generations in to 3 row tablecells for each of the base configurations or something like that. -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 15:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
One more change that needs to be made to the Specifications table and I do not feel comfortable that I know how to edit it. The Late 2007 2.0/2.2 GHz MacBook differs from the Mid-2007 MacBook in terms of the SuperDrive's capabilities. The drive will now write to both DVD+R DL and DVD-R DL discs at 4x speed per Apple's web site ( http://support.apple.com/specs/macbook/MacBook_Late_2007.html). 18 November 2007
While I'm fairly impressed by the article I do find that it contains maybe a bit to much text or that it's in the wrong order. The first part, the overview, should be shortened alot. A lot of information is redundant etc. Is it ok if I take an hour or two to clean/rearrenge the article to make it easier to read? 90.224.152.178/Djupeg
In the table comparing the orignal Macbooks with the new (May update) one, it says that the processor is a 2007 Merom. Which, I think , based on this article, is implying that the Macbook has a Santa Rosa processor, which is untrue. As the MB's processor still has a 667 MT/s FSB compared to a Santa Rosa's 800 MT/s. I think, just for clarity that the May 2007 update table should be changed just to Merom.
Why doesn't this article state that the unit was designed by Sony? It's even got the old Viao style chicklet keyboard (now known as the Apple style keyboard and called as such when "plagiarising" Sony reintroduced it to one laptop line. Go figure). 62.25.106.209 17:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
If a verifiable reference from a verifiable source is found to confirm this information then no one would revert the addition to the article (see WP:RS). However without these sources it's just a rumour which is unencyclopedic. I personally do not think it would matter if Sony or Asus or whoever designed it. It's Apple who markets and sells it, not the former. And if I recall, the Sony Vaio in question came after the MacBook was launched ( http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=290) ( http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/10993/) ( http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/09/19/sony_unveils_vaio_n10/). Nja247 ( talk • contribs) 09:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the phrase about Apple not having a graphic section on their product page, because they actually have, see: http://www.apple.com/macbook/specs.html . Neither does the Mac Mini page include such a section, but at the Mac Mini page this 'issue' is not named. So I have to conclude this little phrase does not add value to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.249.41.90 ( talk) 19:08, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
Comic Life is no longer bundled with all intel based macs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.240.118 ( talk) 18:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no mention of iWork'08 (trial version) being bundled with all MacBooks.
While it is useful to point out potential issues with a product, Wikipedia is not a consumer review website and the neutral point of view policy becomes strained when highly subjective opinion pieces are added to the article. Any issue that is obtained from a subjective review should be truncated, and where possible resolved issues or issues that relate to a bit already covered in the main article should be merged into that area and not be part of a overall criticism section. Further, it's not very encyclopaedic and possibly is a copyright violation to copy and paste every issue at appledefects.com. Every issue copied this way should be deleted and a general link to appledefects.com added to the external links section. I'll wait for comments on this, but if no one is against this latter bit I'll do it myself in a few days. Nja247 ( talk • contribs) 22:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Th Intel GMA page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_GMA) says that the X3100 GPU supports DirectX 10.0. The MacBook vs. MacBook Pro section in this article denies it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.141.102.236 ( talk) 11:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
It does not support Direct X 10. Page 14 and 15 of the Mobile Intel 965 Express Family chipset data sheet are quite clear that X3100 is a DX 9 part. ( ftp://download.intel.com/design/mobile/datashts/31627303.pdf). Thus this article is correct. Nja247 ( talk • contribs) 13:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually doing more research, the X3100 featured on the GM965 does do DX10 ( http://download.intel.com/products/graphics/intel_graphics_guide.pdf). Thus I've updated the article to reflect it. Thanks for bringing it up. Nja247 ( talk • contribs) 13:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Which Core 2 Duo is the processor actually? Everywhere it just says Core 2 Duo 2,0GHz but which one is it q: -- Sigmundur 09:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Quite simple really, if it's a 800MHz bus 2.0GHz Core 2 processor, it must be the T7300, and the 2.2 model the T7500. Nja247 ( talk • contribs) 12:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Could the timeline possibly be any lower contrast? It's almost impossible to tell where sections meet, and the legend is entirely useless. Admittedly, I am slightly colorblind, but I see no reason for the color scheme to remain on the edge of usability. 24.127.45.75 23:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
This is Archive 2, which cover discussions which began in 2007.
At the top of the article it says the MacBook is manufactured by Asus. The sitation leads to a news site, and the article is pretty old (from before the MacBook had a name, they call it an iBook) It seems kinda strange, because Apple manufactured all their other hardware. Could someone check this out? My MacBook says designed by Apple in California, assembled in China -- the Patman of Wiki 02:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually Apple does not manufacture all their hardware. For example, Foxconn makes the Mac Mini and iPods for Apple. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn, (Read the first 4 results from here) http://www.google.com/search?q=ipods+foxconn&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
As for Asus/Asustek production of Macbooks, here are much better sources: http://www.digitimes.com/Backgrounders/ArtReview.asp?datePublish=2007/02/15&pages=PD&seq=210, http://www.emsnow.com/newsarchives/archivedetails.cfm?ID=13659, http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/04/04/asus_macbook_contract/, http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/06/10/10/foxconn_lands_core_2_duo_macbook_orders_from_apple.html, http://news.softpedia.com/news/Apple-Team-To-Supervise-MacBook-Production-at-Asustek-Factory-24214.shtml, http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/06/08/17/apple_shopping_for_third_notebook_manufacturer.html/ Apple, like most other major brand companies, outsources manufacturing. The reason for the iBook reference in the initial source was because anyone who noticed the date would realize that it was shortly before Apple revealed the then-new MacBook line. The 13.3" wide-screen corroborates the story. Never-the-less newer links have been provided here that prove that Foxconn and Asus now produce the Macbook and so I've reverted it back. -- 72.229.114.117 13:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I do see your point, and if Wikipedia weren't an encyclopedia I'd say add the information. However it is an encyclopedia, therefore articles about speculation and rumours cannot be considered as a verifiable source. I suppose, in regards to the iPod article, the name of the manufacturer only came up due to the suspicion of unethical labour violations. However in that example, there was some acknowledgement by Apple and more than a casual link was shown to have existed between the two companies in regards to the iPod, and further, the story was covered by major media outlets. Your work is certainly appreciated, and again I see your point, but again the information needs to be relevant and more than speculative to be included on an article on an encyclopedia. And further this article was worked on extensively in the past to ensure its quality to make it a "good article" and it is possible the Wikipedia Mac project team will try to get this article as a featured article and therefore that quality must be maintained. Cheers. Nja247 ( talk • contribs) 20:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I stumbled across 2 websites on Digg, one for Black MacBook and one for White MacBook, they seem to be repositories with upgrade guides and galleries.
There seems to be an edit war in progress on the use of binary prefixes in this article and other Macs. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) on the question of whether the new prefixes (MiB, GiB, ...) should be used in articles about consumer products where the manufacturer doesn't use them.-- agr 11:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I seem to recall that the last time you and I had a disagreement was over Kreider's Law. At that time you strongly objected to Wikipedia being used to promote new terminology that was not in wide use elsewhere. That is exactly what is going on here. The personal computer industry does not use these prefixes. Articles about the industry should not be required to convert to them.-- agr 16:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The majority of reliable sources for this article do not use binary prefixes. If you have any thoughts/opinions then this specific topic is being discussed on the following talk page Manual of Style (dates and numbers) in the sections to do with "binary prefixes". Fnagaton 10:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm moving this piece of text here to the talk page because it's not sourced and an anon added a bit of text disputing it. Since it doesn't make sense for the article to contradict itself like this, I'm moving it here so it can be discussed.
— Cleared as filed. 05:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to list references to the MacBook in pop culture? Most of the entries on the list are completely irrelevant... lots of artists use Macs, so why only list Armin Van Buuren? "Chicken Little" came out in 2005, a year before the MacBook, so it's really spoofing the iBook. In addition, listing every music video or TV show that a product appears in seems pretty un-encylopedic, and I haven't seen it done in many other articles. Should we even bother keeping this section? - seinman 13:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the article meets all of the criteria. Being a GA reviewer myself (though I've been too busy the last month to do any reviews) I believe it will pass. Though, I've been known to be wrong. The reasons for failure last time are included in the 2006 archive. Nja247 ( talk • contribs) 12:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, great suggestions BTW.
Let me know what you think thus far. Aside from the non-use of tables where appropriate and the fact tag, I don't see anything barring this article from passing GA. Again, I could use help on a lead into the comparison section and help with the proposed reception section. While they are not requirements for a GA, they were excellent suggestion and would make the article better. Nja247 ( talk • contribs) 13:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Please include average power consumption (watts) in computer articles.- 69.87.199.199 13:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
With the 3rd generation now out, the specifications table isn't really suitable anymore. I propose to subdivide the three generations in to 3 row tablecells for each of the base configurations or something like that. -- TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 15:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
One more change that needs to be made to the Specifications table and I do not feel comfortable that I know how to edit it. The Late 2007 2.0/2.2 GHz MacBook differs from the Mid-2007 MacBook in terms of the SuperDrive's capabilities. The drive will now write to both DVD+R DL and DVD-R DL discs at 4x speed per Apple's web site ( http://support.apple.com/specs/macbook/MacBook_Late_2007.html). 18 November 2007
While I'm fairly impressed by the article I do find that it contains maybe a bit to much text or that it's in the wrong order. The first part, the overview, should be shortened alot. A lot of information is redundant etc. Is it ok if I take an hour or two to clean/rearrenge the article to make it easier to read? 90.224.152.178/Djupeg
In the table comparing the orignal Macbooks with the new (May update) one, it says that the processor is a 2007 Merom. Which, I think , based on this article, is implying that the Macbook has a Santa Rosa processor, which is untrue. As the MB's processor still has a 667 MT/s FSB compared to a Santa Rosa's 800 MT/s. I think, just for clarity that the May 2007 update table should be changed just to Merom.
Why doesn't this article state that the unit was designed by Sony? It's even got the old Viao style chicklet keyboard (now known as the Apple style keyboard and called as such when "plagiarising" Sony reintroduced it to one laptop line. Go figure). 62.25.106.209 17:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
If a verifiable reference from a verifiable source is found to confirm this information then no one would revert the addition to the article (see WP:RS). However without these sources it's just a rumour which is unencyclopedic. I personally do not think it would matter if Sony or Asus or whoever designed it. It's Apple who markets and sells it, not the former. And if I recall, the Sony Vaio in question came after the MacBook was launched ( http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=290) ( http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/10993/) ( http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/09/19/sony_unveils_vaio_n10/). Nja247 ( talk • contribs) 09:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the phrase about Apple not having a graphic section on their product page, because they actually have, see: http://www.apple.com/macbook/specs.html . Neither does the Mac Mini page include such a section, but at the Mac Mini page this 'issue' is not named. So I have to conclude this little phrase does not add value to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.249.41.90 ( talk) 19:08, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
Comic Life is no longer bundled with all intel based macs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.240.118 ( talk) 18:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no mention of iWork'08 (trial version) being bundled with all MacBooks.
While it is useful to point out potential issues with a product, Wikipedia is not a consumer review website and the neutral point of view policy becomes strained when highly subjective opinion pieces are added to the article. Any issue that is obtained from a subjective review should be truncated, and where possible resolved issues or issues that relate to a bit already covered in the main article should be merged into that area and not be part of a overall criticism section. Further, it's not very encyclopaedic and possibly is a copyright violation to copy and paste every issue at appledefects.com. Every issue copied this way should be deleted and a general link to appledefects.com added to the external links section. I'll wait for comments on this, but if no one is against this latter bit I'll do it myself in a few days. Nja247 ( talk • contribs) 22:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Th Intel GMA page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_GMA) says that the X3100 GPU supports DirectX 10.0. The MacBook vs. MacBook Pro section in this article denies it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.141.102.236 ( talk) 11:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
It does not support Direct X 10. Page 14 and 15 of the Mobile Intel 965 Express Family chipset data sheet are quite clear that X3100 is a DX 9 part. ( ftp://download.intel.com/design/mobile/datashts/31627303.pdf). Thus this article is correct. Nja247 ( talk • contribs) 13:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually doing more research, the X3100 featured on the GM965 does do DX10 ( http://download.intel.com/products/graphics/intel_graphics_guide.pdf). Thus I've updated the article to reflect it. Thanks for bringing it up. Nja247 ( talk • contribs) 13:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Which Core 2 Duo is the processor actually? Everywhere it just says Core 2 Duo 2,0GHz but which one is it q: -- Sigmundur 09:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Quite simple really, if it's a 800MHz bus 2.0GHz Core 2 processor, it must be the T7300, and the 2.2 model the T7500. Nja247 ( talk • contribs) 12:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Could the timeline possibly be any lower contrast? It's almost impossible to tell where sections meet, and the legend is entirely useless. Admittedly, I am slightly colorblind, but I see no reason for the color scheme to remain on the edge of usability. 24.127.45.75 23:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)