# Talk:MacBook Pro

Apple's "Vintage and obsolete products" page lists all three sizes in both the "vintage in US/Turkey only" and "obsolete worldwide" sections. I don't think that was the case last time I checked, but I don't know what it means for this article here on Wikipedia or when/if they'll amend the contradiction. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:54, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Are there any sources and information that 16-inch MacBook Pro is 5th gen MacBook Pro? I seriously doubt it since the design itself is identical to 4th gen to me.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.92.113 (talk) 21:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC) 

It's not identical, it has a redesigned screen with new dimensions, a redesigned keyboard, a different button layout, new speakers and internal design, and new dimensions for the chassis. It also has a new name. Generally major outward changes are considered a new generation. Apple even refers to it as such on the product page, "The 16-inch MacBook Pro base model is over two times faster than the previous-generation base model". Shivertimbers433 (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I can not agree. 16-inch MBP wasnt announced from official announcment such as WWDC which is very weird. All new gen MBP announced from WWDC. Also, the hardware parts does not represent the generation. That happened quite a lot and yet they still considered as 3rd gen or 4th gen.
"The 16-inch MacBook Pro base model is over two times faster than the previous-generation base model." Officially, Apple does not use generation to identify MBPs. They identify base on the release year such as 2019. I contacted Apple and I got confirmation about this information. So yeah, they were refering to 2019 15-inch MBP, not 4th gen MBP.
Overall, there is no source or official article that 16-inch MBP is a 5th gen MBP.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.92.113 (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
An official announcement isn't a requirement. The Slim Unibody iMac was announced via press release. Sorry, but your alleged conversation with Apple isn't verifiable. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
You need to contact Apple directly from Apple.com and they don't identify MBP base on the generation instead of a year. Also, the generation that wiki is using is officially not verifiable from Apple. https://support.apple.com/en_US/specs/macbookpro  The Slim Unibody iMac WAS announced through the Apple event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqMUZkwwnuA here's the proof. Well, technically, we are talking about MBP, not iMac so I wouldn't consider that as an example. Also, MacBook Pro 2015 with a new trackpad is a great example. After one year, they fully re-designed MBP. So at this point, there is no way to verify if 16-inch MBP is 4th gen or 5th gen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.92.113 (talk) 18:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
I see the keyboard represents a 5th gen MBP but technically, 16-inch MBP is identical to other scissor-type keyboards. I really don't think 16-inch MBP has a new keyboard type.
I personally think that the 2019 16" and 2020 13" should be moved back to '4th gen'. There have only been minor outward changes. There have been chassis changes in the past without being a new generation; for example in 2013, the 13" MBP became thinner. This did not signify a new generation. The 2019 16" is a bigger mid-cycle update than usual, but still shares almost exactly the same look as the 2019 15". It makes even less sense for the 2020 13" to be listed as a new generation. In the base model, the only change was the keyboard. I don't think this can be counted as a new generation, as otherwise why not when the screen was changed to TrueTone? Why not when the trackpad became Force Touch? Why not when Thunderbolt was added? Etc etc. Cambookpro (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I support this. Looks the same inside and out - merge them. Andibrema (talk) 23:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Regardless, the table must disambiguate whether 2019 MBP 16" was released with and without Magic Keyboard.  GenacGenac (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Apple has officially released info that the 16-inch MBP is a 4th gen model, here: https://developer.apple.com/design/resources/#product-bezels JuneForceOne (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The photoshop file for the MacBook Pro 4th Gen also includes the previous-generation MacBook Pro 15”, which indicates that the MacBook Pro (13-inch, 2016 - 2019), MacBook Pro (15-inch, 2016 - 2019), and MacBook Pro (16-inch, 2019) are considered "4th Gen". The question remains whether the MacBook Pro (13-inch, 2020) is 4th Gen, which I think is likely - the design seems to be the focus here, rather than the processor. Andibrema (talk) 12:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

In March, the "Fourth generation (Touch Bar and Thunderbolt 3)" was renamed to "‎Fourth generation (Touch Bar and USB-C)" because "The connector type is more widely known as USB-C"
I would argue its not about the connector type. A USB-C connector which only supports USB 2.0 HS (High Speed) is a valid USB-C connector, while Thunderbolt 3 guarantees Thunderbolt, Display Port and USB 3.1 Gen 2 support.
Therefore, "Fourth generation (Touch Bar and Thunderbolt 3)" is more precise, as an alternative, "Fourth generation (Touch Bar and Thunderbolt 3 via USB-C)" could be considered, to make  it more accessible.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intg (talk • contribs) 06:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC) 

Up until May 2019, the supported OS section for older Mac Book Pros, e.g. the 2008 models, stated:
"OS X 10.11 El Capitan
(Unofficially, can run up to macOS 10.14 Mojave with Mojave Patcher)"
with Mojave Patcher being a Link to https://dosdude1.com/mojave/ .
This was removed because of "WP:V, WP:NOTPROMO".
I do not see the issue. I would like to add unofficially supported versions as yellow boxes to the table in the section "Supported macOS releases".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intg (talk • contribs) 06:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC) 

Should we split the article into different generations of MacBook Pro models, like the iPhone and iPad articles? Glenxoseph (talk) 03:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I suggest that the article NOT be split, if what you mean is to create a separate wiki page for each generation.   If you mean creating visual sections on this page, that is ok, but splitting to new pages is not good. 
The vast majority of people will not know or perceive obviously that there are links to the detailed separate pages -- such as when I just now failed to see the tiny (1)(2)(3)(4)(5) links to the generations of Macbook in the sidebar.  Many people may not even know about the history of Macbook generations to know to follow through to the "5th generation" link.  Most people will look for the information on this page, and fail to find the content they are looking for unless it is very clearly called out visually as needing to follow a link.  Providing some preview of the full information here (specifically, the spec tables) could visually guide people to know that more is available, if a separate but additional page is desired.  See as an example the iMac page, where it fails to show people that there is an Intel version of that model line that has its own page.  The iMac page lacks the detailed tables people may be looking for, and unless you know to look at the Intel page, you will leave without finding the info desired.
The master page for a major product line should contain as much information as possible, and if needed to be split, only be done so in addition to the info on the main page, with prominent visual linking so the reader knows there is more detail. 
Supernova87a (talk) 09:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)supernova87a

I think you're correct that the iMac article should do a better job of presenting and leading people to the iMac (Intel-based) article that has more detailed information and tables that many people will be looking for. But this problem has better solutions than trying to jam everything into one long article to avoid links. I can also understand the position that "The master page for a major product line should contain as much information as possible", but it's not in line with the accepted Wikipedia:Article size editing guideline. This article is currently much longer than recommended in the guideline. In this case, it's common and best practice to split off much of the details into separate articles. That doesn't mean we get rid of this overall article, but it becomes a more general summary, which links to the detailed content in the individual articles.
The vast majority of people will not know or perceive obviously that there are links to the detailed separate pages - that may be true if it's done poorly. But this is basically how Wikipedia works, on a linked hypertext model - as does most of the web. We have templates like Template:Main to make it even clearer. It just has to be done properly, so that the links are clear, but that's entirely possible and is the way things normally should be done in order to avoid an excessively long article, according to the guideline. --IamNotU (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Oppose as per Supernova87a's reasoning. Brian Reading (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding MacBook_Pro#Supported_macOS_releases
This strikes me as a case of table misuse (MOS:NO-TABLES). Can we convert this into a list of hardware models, and for each bullet mention the supported range of OSes simply? --Saledomo (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

There is another article on Staingate, but I think it should either be merged with this one, or at least a link should be placed in the third generation section, since it's a common issue with this generation.
It's a very prominent and notorious problem, and apple had a program where they would replace the screens free of charge, therefore acknowledging the design flaw. I hope that this info can be included. 128.195.66.168 (talk) 07:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

See title.
I made the mistake of replacing two 4MB SIMMs/DIMMs (which one?) with one 8MB.
BIG MISTAKE when it came time for restoring the OS.
Many headaches would have been avoided if I had kept it 4+4 MB cards, PLURAL. 
LP-mn (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

This should be split off into its own section. There's a precedent for this, when the Mac Mini switched from PowerPC to Intel but was otherwise externally identical. Though Apple is once again referring to Apple silicon with "new" and "previous generation" language, so are we on gen 6 now? -Shivertimbers433 (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the Apple Silicon version should have their own article as most of the rest of the lineup has separate articles for PowerPC and Intel versions so the same should apply between Intel and Apple Silicon. Subscribe to me (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
As I point out above, I vote that the article can be split into a new section, but not into a separate page that requires link clicking.  Showing the information to a first-time reader on the same page at a good level of detail (visually clear to the reader that there exists this level of detail available) is important. Supernova87a (talk) 09:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)supernova87a
I think the Apple Silicon version should have its own article just like the iMac instead of referring to Mac Mini. Paper9oll | Talk:(Paper9oll) 16:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

 Proposing a split based on the processor change, e.g. what was done with iMac (Intel-based) after the PowerPC transition. Also basing this on article size, the length of this article is over 200K, which is over twice that of the recommended article size.-Shivertimbers433 (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

 I support the split. Paper9oll | Talk:(Paper9oll) 05:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 I support the split. Hongsy (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
I think a awkward thing is the current generation consists of both intel and M1 MBPs, thus splitting this way would result in the current gen getting split up.  17jiangz1 (talk) 07:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Are they really the same generation though? In the past we've considered a major processor architecture split to be a new generation, e.g. PowerPC to Intel. -Shivertimbers433 (talk) 10:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, are they? I would say at least wait a bit. Technically Arm is quite different, and I can see how it deserves not to be grouped with Intel, but according to reviews the compatibility is excellent and to users they do not see a change, only faster even for Intel/x86 programs, so this is an implementation detail. Yes, sources make a big deal of going to Arm understandably, but the also make a big deal for every new generation made with Intel. I would say until/if we see bad reviews, maybe some (important) programs are broken, no need to rush. comp.arch (talk) 13:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't think so. The fundamental design and function of the new Macs remains exactly the same. Same design, same OS, capable of running the same programs. The average person might not even be able to tell that they are using the new model. This is an internal technical change not relevant to the average Mac user and certainly not enough to warrant an entirely different article. Regarding the article's length, that is irrelevant to this discussion and it would remain over the recommended length even if a new article was made; the solution there is to have a separate list article. 123.208.94.86 (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

All of this is true for, say, the iMac G5 and the Intel Core Duo iMac, which we've never lumped together because they look the same on the outside, nor the Mac Mini G4 and Intel Core Duo Mac Mini which are externally identical. As for "same OS, capable of running the same programs", no...different OS on a different codebase and only capable of running the same programs if they are recompiled for ARM or play nice with Rosetta. -Shivertimbers433 (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
There is an article at iMac which covers both types of iMac. I don't really see what you're getting at here. If you want to write a more specific and detailed article at MacBook Pro (Apple Silicon) then that's fine. If you want MacBook Pro to be a disambiguation page pointing to two different articles based on processor type then that's ridiculous. It's an internal detail that most readers neither understand nor care about and it would be extremely confusing for them. Also, it is the same OS -- Big Sur, and only low-level code changes between architectures. The point is that most people won't notice any difference. 123.208.94.86 (talk) 09:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with this reasoning, and oppose a two-way "split" per se, i.e. getting rid of a general "MacBook Pro" article that covers all models named "MacBook Pro", and replacing it with "MacBook Pro (Intel)" and "MacBook Pro (Apple Silicon)". They are both still MacBook Pro's, and come under the subject of this article. We do in fact "lump together" G4/G5 and Intel models in both the iMac and Mac Mini main articles.
If length is a problem, I'm not opposed to creating new articles to split off some of the content. But processor type isn't necessarily the deciding factor. The change to Unibody, or to Retina, may be just as significant a change in some senses. I think it would be better to have articles for the various generations, the way iPhone is done, corresponding to how the sections of this article are currently organized. Most of the content of the current sections could be moved to those articles, with more general summaries replacing it in this article. Or the current "generation" sections could then be removed and replaced with more general content that covers all models, with internal links to the various generation articles - again, the way iPhone is done. --IamNotU (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
For now, I’d say don’t split, as there will only be one model year with apple silicon, and it shares the design with the 5th Gen pro. Maybe once a new redesign comes around then this should be reconsidered  Mine2480 (talk) 14:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Actually seems to be considered a new generation per the press release. On another note, generation numbers don't seem to be official/standardised, thus are they suitable for the article?--17jiangz1 (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Do Split This article will get really large in the future so it's best we do it now because if we don't this will haunt us in 2025 when there is a 2nd or possibly 3rd generation of Apple Silicon MacBook Pro. We might as well do the same to the Mac Mini and MacBook Air, as the same will happen to those. For the iMac, Mac Pro, and iMac Pro, let's wait until they get Apple Silicon to create their Apple Silicon articles. Subscribe to me (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I would say we wait until at least all the MacBook Pro's have transitioned to Apple silicon for the change. People looking at this page may find it hard to navigate between two websites that have both models that are currently selling. If we split now it may seem that the two TB3 version has just been discontinued with no replacement as of right now. Zsky99 (talk) 07:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree a split would be more appropriate once more of the lineup has transitioned. --17jiangz1 (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't think we should split just yet. Once the lineup has completely transitioned, around 2022, I think we should split. Herbfur (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree that we should split, but also that we should wait a bit. 26zhangi (talk)
A split is nessecary at some point, but the current generation doesn't consist of a full line-up so we'd be left with a half-generation in its own stub page. As of present it makes more sense to keep a single page Server 686 (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Too early - It is original research to claim that MacBook Pro (Intel-based) and MacBook Pro (Apple Silicon) are different topics that deserve different articles. Apple does not make such a distinction. In fact the the products are made to look identical and share all of their mechanical parts. There may be a need for a separate article on the 2020 Macbook Pro, of better yet, an article that combines all the M1 based Macs from late 2020. (I do not know what such and an article should be called, maybe Mac (M1-based)). -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

There are some problems with that. For one things all the Macs first generation Intel Macs (with the excpetion of the iBook (which got replaced with the MacBook)) look identical to their PowerPC counterparts. The PowerBook G4 and MacBook Pro are split into two articles, likely because of the name change, same applying to the Power Mac G5 and Mac Pro. However, even without the name change, the iMac G5 and Intel iMac have their own articles. I'm guessing the reason why though was because there already were separate articles for the G3 and G4. I did propose splitting the Mac Mini article but that didn't succeed. I should mention the articles are progressively growing and WP:SPLIT says articles should be split if the are over 100 kb. And this articles is well over 200kb. Splitting it into Intel and Apple silicon is the best way we can split it right now. But it will cut down the size. Subscribe to me (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 Per WP:SIZERULE the Intel-based MacBook Pro would be a well-sized article; we're at 54,227 characters right now, so I think this is a good opportunity. Andibrema (talk) 23:18, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the PowerBook is the predecessor to the MacBook Pro because they both denote the "superordinate" brand, while the PowerBook G4 is a generation within the PowerBook.
Arguments in favor:

The model identifier PowerBook 1,1 is first seen in the fourth PowerBook G3 (Bronze Keyboard, Lombard), and is continued within the G4 series. (Note: No similar identifiers seem to have been used in previous PowerBooks, so the introduction of the Powerbook 1,1 identifier probably does not represent a major page break within the PowerBook brand.)
The G4 suffix merely represents an upgrade to PowerPC G4.
The G4 suffix has lived alongside the PowerBook for only 5 years while the PowerBook brand has been around for 15 years, which is the same duration as the MacBook Pro today.
Changes in the suffix have occured to the MacBook Pro as well in the form of screen size ("13-inch").
Arguments against:

Design changes have been more noticable between the G3 and G4 than within each of the generations, so the G4 can be seen as a superordinate brand as well, with 2 generations within itself. (Though design changes have been major for MacBook Pros as well.)
Andibrema (talk) 10:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the predecessor is the powerbook. 26zhangi (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I noticed some disagreements about how the different generations are defined, but as far as I can tell this numbering isn't even used by Apple. Why are they important at all, and what's the source of them? If they're just made up, can't we just use headings without counting the generations? For example:

2006: First generation
2008: unibody enclosure
2012: Retina screen
2016: Touch bar
2019: Magic keyboard
2020: Apple M1 processor
Just a thought. Same goes for the Macbook Air article... EditorInTheRye (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I am looking to re-engage as the debate is ongoing. I just restored the initial version with 6 generations today. Looking for a source, I found https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201300, which likely adds more confusion as it would appear there are [13?] generations of MacBook Pro, with the first being the MacBookPro4,x in 2008, and the latest the MacBookPro17,1 in 2020 (the M1). I think saying there are three generation to make viewing the article is incorrect, but the current listing of 6 generations also doesn’t seem to match up with Apple, but it may be more recognizable to Mac users. Thoughts and other sources? N.J.A.  | talk 11:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I would say we give the apple silicon models their own line of generations. We would refer to what's on sale right now as the 1st generation Apple Silicon MacBook Pro and then when it gets a new design refer to that as the 2nd generation Apple Silicon MacBook Pro. Currently, the iMac is split up G3, G4, G5, and then 1st Gen Intel (looks mostly the same as the iMac G5), 2nd Gen Intel (2007), 3rd being the 2009 Unibody, 4th being the 2012 slim unibody, 5th being the retina, and then Apple Silicon. I expect that in the future we will refer to the current Apple Silicon iMac as the first generation Apple Silicon iMac, and then when a redesign comes out that will be referred to as the 2nd generation Apple Silicon. So, basically, we split them up by processor type. Subscribe to me (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I am in strong favor of reverting the generation numbers to 5 or 6. We had a continuity during the past 10 years when we named the generations here on Wikipedia and there is no argument in grouping some generations together. I think we have grandfathered the generation names we have established over the past 10 years. Or else, are we going to call a specific computer a Macbook Pro (pre 2021: third generation, since 2021: second generation)? Let us please revert the numbers and then discuss here.--Homei (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The way I see it, the Apple Silicon models will start their own line of generations, and the first redesign will be referred to as the 2nd Generation Apple Silicon while what's on sale right now are 5th Generation Intel and 1st generation Apple Silicon Subscribe to me (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I have finally figured out how to message y’all so I am here to give my take. I want to come to an agreement on how we should layout the generations Responding to NJA And Homei sorry I wasn’t able to respond quickly because I was working but how I think the generations are numbered Is through Design generations also following the MacBook Air such with the MacBook Pro as calling the “Third generation (Retina)” the “Second generation (Retina)” because that generation shares mostly the same design as the Second Generation from 2008 and lining up with the second generation MacBook Air from 2010 while the “Fourth generation (Touch Bar and USB-C)” is the “Third generation (Touch Bar and USB-C)” and the 2019 16in and 2020 M1 are although significant revisions I wouldn’t call those whole generations, Same goes with the MacBook Air. Below you can find a Cruddy timeline I made but it perfectly explains what I am going at on the MacBook Pro side.
Rico The MLG PRO (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Generally models are grouped by chassis type. The Retina models were a major redesign in and out from the previous unibody models. New dimensions, new port arrangements, new internals, new screen tech. I don't think they should be grouped together merely because they kind of look alike. -Shivertimbers433 (talk) 04:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
My idea for the generations is that the retina and non-retina are different generations, with the Magic Keyboard also being used as differentiation as the magic keyboard models are ever so slightly thicker and Apple did officially describe it as a generation, with for the 16-inch the bezels shrinking. And in a less obvious way that's basically how they describe every redesign. But for the Apple Silicon models I suggest we instead start a new line of generations.  Subscribe to me (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Could we get some consensus on the article? I was re-reading it and under the Retina MacBook Pro it refers to itself as a "third generation MacBook Pro" and as a "second generation with Retina Display". I'd be more leaning towards a rename to third generation as it's much more than just a Unibody with a new screen. The readability and comprehension seems to suffer because of this confusion. Server 686 (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, definetly third generation. Andibrema (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
User:Server 686 you might wanna sign this, btw. Andibrema (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@QuarioQuario54321: The template &nbsp; that you're removing is intended to be used as a non-breaking space, for example between numbers and units of measurement. See also the Manual of Style: MOS:NBSP

A few of the generations (not all) were cited to the Apple marketing resources, but that's an obscure page that's vulnerable to WP:CITOGENESIS. While there are a few other sources that use these generations, they're quite likely to be CITOGENESIS too, since this article has used our "generations" nomenclature for many years. I've changed the headings to reflect the common names of these machines. DFlhb (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)