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 3, which cover discussions which began in 2008.
Someone has been altering the content and changing stuff like how it uses a 2.1GHz Core 2 Duo to a PII and stuff like that. I don't know enough about all the hardware etc. to change it back to normal so if someone can look into that it would be appreciated
Jak3 dude ( talk) 07:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Some newer editors have taken the liberty to remove an criticism found in the intro which noted the now resolved random shutdown issues of early MacBook's. While I agree that this issue may no longer affect the MacBook, it is still most certainly relevant. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, therefore all relevant and well documented information relating to the entire history of a product (whether resolved or not) should be included. This is not a sales page for Apple, but an account on the entire history (good or bad) of the product.
The criticism in question was well sourced, NPOV, and integrated into the article instead of a separate section to further add to their objectivity. I hope to encourage some discussion regarding this. I have re-added it for the reasons noted. If you disagree with me please do so here and we can work out a consensus. Nja247 ( talk • contribs) 09:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
please improve this by putting
macbook vs macbook pro (i don't know if the [] will let you go there) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
209.244.187.252 (
talk)
22:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does this seem more like an advertisement? 220.253.17.191 ( talk) 10:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it does. It has all these cool features! YAY ADS!
I have a screen shot. Do you want it?
Luna —Preceding comment was added at 14:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It's quoted as 10.4.6 for the first-gen MacBook with the source as a Cnet review, but that has to be incorrect or at least only partially correct - mine came with 10.4.4 (or a variant thereof specially for the MacBook release), and that's the version on my Mac OS X install disc. *shrug* -Oscar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.40.11 ( talk) 17:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The Apple Developer note for the model revision, released just after the revision, is the best source of minimum OS version; third-party reviews seem to come slightly later. I've found the Developer notes for the last two MacBook revisions (10.5.0 and 10.5.2), and referenced them. Haven't yet figured out how to get the Apple Developer search engine to cough up the urls to Developer Notes for earlier revisions, though. Anyone? (Annoying how this is not given in the Apple support pages). Lloyd Wood ( talk) 04:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, the Apple Developer Note for the first MacBook in May 2006 agrees with the C|Net review, and also says 10.4.6. Lloyd Wood ( talk) 00:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I note that this article uses “MB” to denote megabyte. Other articles on Wikipedia use “MiB” instead of “MB”. For interested authors, debate and a vote is ongoing on Talk:MOSNUM regarding a proposal that would deprecate the use of computer terms like “ kibibyte” (symbol “KiB”), “ mebibyte” (symbol “MiB”), and kibibit (symbol “Kib”). It would no longer be permissible to use terminology like a “a SODIMM card with a capacity of two gibibytes (2 GiB) first became available…” and instead, the terminology currently used by manufacturers of computer equipment and general-circulation computer magazines (“two gigabytes, or 2 GB”) would be used. Voting on the proposal is ongoing here. Greg L ( my talk) 21:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to propose that we change the orientation for the specifications table or change it to a specifications list like that of the PowerBook pages and the iBook page. As Apple continues to release new MacBook models, we're going to see either columns get mushed or horizontal scrolling becoming necessary. Please discuss. Butterfly0fdoom ( talk) 19:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I corrected the Hungarian base price to 264000 HUF from 177600, which seemed a plain a USD-HUF conversion from the US price. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanitin ( talk • contribs) 11:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me or is the placement of defects in this article oddly placed? In addition why is no mention made to the random shut-offs and the defective batteries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delta-NC ( talk • contribs) 12:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted the page due to imagery vandalism. If you see any more false, vandalism related info on this page, please fix it and/or report it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.118.65.132 ( talk) 15:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd like for whoever added the bit about the invitations to the event to please cite their source; I'd like to see if this is verifiable. 71.163.28.56 ( talk) 21:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
A plastic is NOT an alloy, therefore the line which states "Apple acknowledged the issue and replaced the defective part with more smudge resistant alloys." is incorrect since the affected palm rests were made of plastic (even one of the citations states this). I submitted a change, but this was undone by Nja247. Why?
Now that the aluminium Macbooks are out that DO have alloy casings, allowing this error to remain could potentially lead to confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.85.216.12 ( talk) 20:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
You are indeed correct. It should say plastic, not alloys. If I undid your change of alloys to plastics then I apologise and must had done so in error. Cheers. Nja247 ( talk • contribs) 23:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I just want to note that I see the US base price went from $1099 to $999, but the UK price went from £699, to £719. Thus saying it's priced lower is not necessarily true generally. 82.35.49.246 ( talk) 23:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
The article needs to be re-written so that it follows the format of the iBook article where the G3 clamshell, G3 dual-usb, and G4 are independent sections. I'll do my best to help with the rewrite, but other editors ought to contribute. Butterfly0fdoom ( talk) 01:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I do not enjoy the removal of previous chipset information, and will try to reincorporate that information. Nja247 ( talk • contribs) 05:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The consenus is Aluminum (US Spelling) Please do not continue to add to the discussion, the dead equine has been beaten enough already.-- Terrillja ( talk) 04:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Discussion |
---|
Trying to head off the revert war which appears to have started. Hoping to try and find consensus on this rather than have 2 editors revert endlessly. I believe that since Apple is a US company, the US spelling should be used, but I am open to whatever the consensus is. -- Terrillja ( talk) 15:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
All articles that are not US specific should use the term "Aluminium" because it is the official scientific terminology, and because it is the most commonly used throughout the world. This article is not US specific just because it is a product manufactured by a US company. Examples of US specific include American Football, American Civil War, 2008 US Election. Aluminium is the term used in aluminium foil, and it should be used here as well. Please take this into consideration. Darkshark0159 ( talk) 18:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it's sensible to leave it at US spelling as my experience has been that Americans can be very defensive about their way of doing things, regardless if everyone else in the world (including Canada) do something, or in this instance spell something a different way. I hope everyone can see through this non-issue and act in a mature manner and not vandalise pages and/or make threats and just leave the article as is since regardless of the spelling the world knows that aluminum is aluminium. Cheers. Nja247 ( talk • contribs) 19:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Just a note that because the Wikipedia:Third opinion project addresses disputes between two editors, and there are at least six involved in this one, the request for a third opinion here has been removed. (I say spell it the way the manufacturer spells it, but that's me.) — Athaenara ✉ 03:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
|
The MacBook Pro article lists model numbers, which I have personally found to be a very handy reference. Does anyone know enough about the Macbook line to add model numbers here as well? Udibi ( talk) 06:47, 8 November 2008 (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 3, which cover discussions which began in 2008.
Someone has been altering the content and changing stuff like how it uses a 2.1GHz Core 2 Duo to a PII and stuff like that. I don't know enough about all the hardware etc. to change it back to normal so if someone can look into that it would be appreciated
Jak3 dude ( talk) 07:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Some newer editors have taken the liberty to remove an criticism found in the intro which noted the now resolved random shutdown issues of early MacBook's. While I agree that this issue may no longer affect the MacBook, it is still most certainly relevant. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, therefore all relevant and well documented information relating to the entire history of a product (whether resolved or not) should be included. This is not a sales page for Apple, but an account on the entire history (good or bad) of the product.
The criticism in question was well sourced, NPOV, and integrated into the article instead of a separate section to further add to their objectivity. I hope to encourage some discussion regarding this. I have re-added it for the reasons noted. If you disagree with me please do so here and we can work out a consensus. Nja247 ( talk • contribs) 09:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
please improve this by putting
macbook vs macbook pro (i don't know if the [] will let you go there) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
209.244.187.252 (
talk)
22:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me, or does this seem more like an advertisement? 220.253.17.191 ( talk) 10:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it does. It has all these cool features! YAY ADS!
I have a screen shot. Do you want it?
Luna —Preceding comment was added at 14:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It's quoted as 10.4.6 for the first-gen MacBook with the source as a Cnet review, but that has to be incorrect or at least only partially correct - mine came with 10.4.4 (or a variant thereof specially for the MacBook release), and that's the version on my Mac OS X install disc. *shrug* -Oscar —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.40.11 ( talk) 17:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The Apple Developer note for the model revision, released just after the revision, is the best source of minimum OS version; third-party reviews seem to come slightly later. I've found the Developer notes for the last two MacBook revisions (10.5.0 and 10.5.2), and referenced them. Haven't yet figured out how to get the Apple Developer search engine to cough up the urls to Developer Notes for earlier revisions, though. Anyone? (Annoying how this is not given in the Apple support pages). Lloyd Wood ( talk) 04:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, the Apple Developer Note for the first MacBook in May 2006 agrees with the C|Net review, and also says 10.4.6. Lloyd Wood ( talk) 00:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I note that this article uses “MB” to denote megabyte. Other articles on Wikipedia use “MiB” instead of “MB”. For interested authors, debate and a vote is ongoing on Talk:MOSNUM regarding a proposal that would deprecate the use of computer terms like “ kibibyte” (symbol “KiB”), “ mebibyte” (symbol “MiB”), and kibibit (symbol “Kib”). It would no longer be permissible to use terminology like a “a SODIMM card with a capacity of two gibibytes (2 GiB) first became available…” and instead, the terminology currently used by manufacturers of computer equipment and general-circulation computer magazines (“two gigabytes, or 2 GB”) would be used. Voting on the proposal is ongoing here. Greg L ( my talk) 21:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to propose that we change the orientation for the specifications table or change it to a specifications list like that of the PowerBook pages and the iBook page. As Apple continues to release new MacBook models, we're going to see either columns get mushed or horizontal scrolling becoming necessary. Please discuss. Butterfly0fdoom ( talk) 19:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I corrected the Hungarian base price to 264000 HUF from 177600, which seemed a plain a USD-HUF conversion from the US price. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanitin ( talk • contribs) 11:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it just me or is the placement of defects in this article oddly placed? In addition why is no mention made to the random shut-offs and the defective batteries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delta-NC ( talk • contribs) 12:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted the page due to imagery vandalism. If you see any more false, vandalism related info on this page, please fix it and/or report it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.118.65.132 ( talk) 15:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd like for whoever added the bit about the invitations to the event to please cite their source; I'd like to see if this is verifiable. 71.163.28.56 ( talk) 21:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
A plastic is NOT an alloy, therefore the line which states "Apple acknowledged the issue and replaced the defective part with more smudge resistant alloys." is incorrect since the affected palm rests were made of plastic (even one of the citations states this). I submitted a change, but this was undone by Nja247. Why?
Now that the aluminium Macbooks are out that DO have alloy casings, allowing this error to remain could potentially lead to confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.85.216.12 ( talk) 20:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
You are indeed correct. It should say plastic, not alloys. If I undid your change of alloys to plastics then I apologise and must had done so in error. Cheers. Nja247 ( talk • contribs) 23:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I just want to note that I see the US base price went from $1099 to $999, but the UK price went from £699, to £719. Thus saying it's priced lower is not necessarily true generally. 82.35.49.246 ( talk) 23:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
The article needs to be re-written so that it follows the format of the iBook article where the G3 clamshell, G3 dual-usb, and G4 are independent sections. I'll do my best to help with the rewrite, but other editors ought to contribute. Butterfly0fdoom ( talk) 01:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I do not enjoy the removal of previous chipset information, and will try to reincorporate that information. Nja247 ( talk • contribs) 05:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The consenus is Aluminum (US Spelling) Please do not continue to add to the discussion, the dead equine has been beaten enough already.-- Terrillja ( talk) 04:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Discussion |
---|
Trying to head off the revert war which appears to have started. Hoping to try and find consensus on this rather than have 2 editors revert endlessly. I believe that since Apple is a US company, the US spelling should be used, but I am open to whatever the consensus is. -- Terrillja ( talk) 15:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
All articles that are not US specific should use the term "Aluminium" because it is the official scientific terminology, and because it is the most commonly used throughout the world. This article is not US specific just because it is a product manufactured by a US company. Examples of US specific include American Football, American Civil War, 2008 US Election. Aluminium is the term used in aluminium foil, and it should be used here as well. Please take this into consideration. Darkshark0159 ( talk) 18:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it's sensible to leave it at US spelling as my experience has been that Americans can be very defensive about their way of doing things, regardless if everyone else in the world (including Canada) do something, or in this instance spell something a different way. I hope everyone can see through this non-issue and act in a mature manner and not vandalise pages and/or make threats and just leave the article as is since regardless of the spelling the world knows that aluminum is aluminium. Cheers. Nja247 ( talk • contribs) 19:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Just a note that because the Wikipedia:Third opinion project addresses disputes between two editors, and there are at least six involved in this one, the request for a third opinion here has been removed. (I say spell it the way the manufacturer spells it, but that's me.) — Athaenara ✉ 03:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
|
The MacBook Pro article lists model numbers, which I have personally found to be a very handy reference. Does anyone know enough about the Macbook line to add model numbers here as well? Udibi ( talk) 06:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)