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 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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
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)
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?
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)
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)
I found this piece of gem on the Internet:
Boy, I will miss Apple someday. -- Toytoy 10:38, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
There mayn't be a point, but it's awfully funny. Angelic Wraith
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)
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
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)
A computer built around a microprocessor for use by an individual, as in an office or at home or school.
The materials seem directed to the personal computer buying public, or at very least a business-oriented subset thereof.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!
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))...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),
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
Sorry, that was me that removed the bottom of the page, by accident 68.209.19.232 21:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
From the article:
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)
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.
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)
Is any model of the Macintosh backward-compatible with Apple II software? (unsigned comment from anon)
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 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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
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)
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?
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)
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)
I found this piece of gem on the Internet:
Boy, I will miss Apple someday. -- Toytoy 10:38, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
There mayn't be a point, but it's awfully funny. Angelic Wraith
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)
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
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)
A computer built around a microprocessor for use by an individual, as in an office or at home or school.
The materials seem directed to the personal computer buying public, or at very least a business-oriented subset thereof.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!
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))...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),
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
Sorry, that was me that removed the bottom of the page, by accident 68.209.19.232 21:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
From the article:
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)
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.
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)
Is any model of the Macintosh backward-compatible with Apple II software? (unsigned comment from anon)