Talk:MacBook Pro/Archive 1

message: The article page has been updated to reflect the fact that Apple has chosen to utilize Intel's EFI as their bootstrap software, as opposed to Open Firmware previously deployed.  I think readers would like to know whether this means Apple utilizes Trusted computing to lock-in their x86 port of Mac OS X.
Does the MacBook / EFI support Firewire-boot and Target-Disk-Mode?
:Regarding dual-boot with Windows, I know I would much rather prefer to install Windows on one my external Firewire drives and have the option to boot from it.  I wouldn't want to consume my prescious limited internal hard drive space on a second partition+install, and it could then also double as a data drive for copying large files to other Windows computers.
:Yes, it does.  Mushroom 01:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Extensible Firmware Interface

message: The CPU is clearly capable of running in 64-bit mode (albeit somewhat anaemically), but I can find no reliable reference stating whether the MacBook Pros will run the CPU in 32-bit mode or in 64-bit mode.  Obviously, the biggest advantage of 64-bit mode is when you have more than 2 to 4 gigs of RAM, but there are other advantages as well.  I strongly suspect the MacBook Pro runs in 64-bit mode as it makes no sense to me for Apple to take a step backwards on this.  But I don't know for sure.  Could someone find out and add the information to the article?  Thanks.  --Yamla 17:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, based on what is available at , the current generation of Intel Apple computers are 32-bit only.  I'm not sure this is all that reliable... I find it hard to imagine that Apple will force two major platform changes in as many years but I suppose it is possible.  Anyone got any better sources? --Yamla 17:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The only one to have `stepped backwards' would be the iMac that definitely did have a 64-bit CPU when it had a G5. The PowerBook never had a 64-bit CPU in it. --huwr 00:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The Powerbook/MacBook hardware doesn't support more than 2GB of RAM, so it wouldn't hit that memory ceiling anyway. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 01:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The Intel Core Duo processor is, indeed, only 32-bit .  That gives it a 4 GB RAM ceiling .  However, there shouldn't be a major 'shift' when moving to x86-64, as it should be very similar to the PowerPC 32 to 64-bit transition.  (i.e. x86-64 is just an 'extension' to the existing x86 platform.)  Heck, the developer transition machines used a 64-bit Pentium 4 .  Intel's next major chip family (Conroe/Merom/Woodcrest) will be 64-bit across the board, including mobile.  This new family is expected to be released toward the end of this year (2006,) and will likely be the processor inside the replacement for the Power Mac (MacMac Pro?  :-p). Ehurtley 19:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of bits 

message: :See Talk:Apple-Intel architecture#New article. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 16:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article 

message: The article currently says that "Apple will continue to sell PowerBooks which remain in its inventory, along with the now discontinued line of iMac G5 desktops."  Apple hasn't said that they are discontinuing the PPC equivalents.  For example, someone wanting a 'Pro' laptop with a bigger screen, or smaller screen, would still have to get a PowerBook.  Removed the comment.  (Likely they're keeping them around for a while just like when they switched the Power Mac to G5, and kept the PMac G4 around for a little while, not just 'selling remaining inventory'.)  Ehurtley 20:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PowerBooks? 

message: Suggest MacBook no longer forward to this page, they are different products. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.151.195.33 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 7 April 2006  (UTC)
: Would you mind pointing us to the page selling the MacBook then? AlistairMcMillan 23:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone else changed the MacBook article so that it contains the speculative info. Don't worry, I made sure the future products template was there. :) -- Hawaiian717 23:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The MacBook is going to be the replacement for Apple's current line of iBooks...I personally don't think MacBook should redirect to MacBook Pro, and I'm not seeing any future products boilerplate or template anywhere. zack 19:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MacBook forward

message: Hrm, all of the major Macintosh news and rumor sites have nothing about this new 'spate' of MagSafe failures, and the two 'new' cases linked to here are both in forums where the post detailing the 'new' incidents is a brand-new poster.  One offers no photographic proof, the other only provides links to photos that are offline.  Sorry, but this looks like unverified 'original research' to me.  Anyone else support its removal?  Ehurtley 22:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have heard of no legitimate MagSafe failure reports sent to Apple. I too support it's removal. zack 20:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTE: I have removed all reference to it in accordance with WP:BOLD.  I think it may be worth mentioning on some small note but should not be taken seriously.  If anyone objects please do so below. --mboverload 01:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New incidents of MagSafe failing? 

message: How many hours is the battery life for the MacBook Pro 15/17 inch? McDonaldsGuy 05:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 4.5 hours for the 15", 5.5 hours for the 17". — Wackymacs 07:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depending on use, of course. Notebookreview shows the 15 inch MacBook Pro gets about three hours which is probably closer to what an average user will experience than "up to 4.5 hours" as Apple marketing claims.  The 15" MacBook comes with a 60-watt-hour battery while the 17" comes with a 68-watt-hour.  This is fairly standard for a 6-cell battery.  By comparison, many Wintel dual-core laptops come with an 8 or 9 cell battery that, everything else being equal, would get 30 - 50% more life.  But Apple underclocks the graphics cards in the MacBook Pros.  The end result is that the MacBook Pro gets slightly more battery life than a comparable Wintel dual core if that Wintel laptop has a 6-cell battery, but substantially less battery life than a Wintel with a larger battery (as should be expected).  The 4.5 and 5.5 hours really have little likelihood in average use and should be taken with a large pinch of salt.  --Yamla 16:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I find it funny that they officially call it 4.5.  Usually they estimate higher-than-possible by half an hour or so, yet I can reach 5 hours regularly, and have coaxed 5.5 out of my 15" MBP.  But, I do run with wireless off most of the time when on battery, and frequently put my backlight on minimum brightness.  Ehurtley 22:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lucky you!  I got exactly 3 hours (and still getting 3 hours after a month) - but I have both Bluetooth and Wireless on - and run close to full-brightness...  (Interestingly, Arstechnica got 3 hours too...)  So I guess the 4.5 hours sound about right if people run it somewhere inbetween.  --mintchocicecream 00:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Battery life

message: There are two headers in the article ("MacBook Pro 15.4" (January 2006)" and "MacBook Pro 17" (April 2006)") apparently intended to give an overview and specifications of each specific model.  However, most of the 17" details are intersperced within the 15.4" section.
Pedantically, I think it would make sense to either split up the text so that it actually follows the atricle's apparent outline, or else re-structure the outline so that it better reflects the orginatition of the article's text.24.222.2.222 17:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixed Specifications 

message: There should be a comparison (hardware, performance, specs) of MacBook Pro and MacBook.
From the POV of someone who hasn't always followed Apple, I'm not sure what the difference is.
--AlanH 16:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main difference apart from the smaller (glossy) screens is the lack of a decent graphics card.  The MacBooks are unsuitable for gaming because of their lack of graphics capabilities, for example.  Of course, that's not what they are designed for.  There are other differences, including the keyboard of course.  --Yamla 17:45, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  vs MacBook 

message: Bezel design flaw? The MBP screen bezel with the iSight is lopsided and top heavy. An aesthetic quibble. Jonathan Ive can't be proud of that. Shouldn't this be mentioned somewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.243.102.50 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 6 June 2006
: Do you have a source to back up this claim?  See WP:VERIFY. AlistairMcMillan 18:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I find that the top bezel aesthetically mirrors the strip above the keyboard and speakers on the flat section of the computer, but personal preferences shouldn't come into this - if we find someone with some credibility making such a comment, we can discuss it with sources, but otherwise ... Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Industrial design

message: Recently, some tests have challenged this explanation of heat issues, showing a minimal (one or two degrees F) drop in temperature when thermal grease was re-applied. - There are clear references for how removing thermal paste makes a difference, but no reference for this assertion. -- IndigoMM 09:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thermal Issues 

message: While searching for a way to get proper keyboard functionality in XP, I found this piece of windows software:
http://www.olofsson.info/
It was frustrating not being able to use the home, end, pageup and pagedown keys in windows.  Should there be a Boot Camp/XP issues area for the article page?  I know wikipedia is not a howto or a tech support site, but a few short links in a single paragraph might be very helpful for some people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewalrus (talk • contribs) 
:Better in a Boot Camp article, perhaps? Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boot Camp and Hardware issues with Keyboard 

message: Would it ok to add a Triva section to the main article? I've noticed a few MBPs cropping up on TV since they launched and it would be quite cool if we could document it. S.Skinner 18:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but since Apple hardware appears regularly on television/films, I'm not sure it would be a good idea.  Firstly I'm not sure how we'd make it verifiable, secondly it would very quickly become a long unwieldy list.  See also Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. AlistairMcMillan 20:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd rather someone compile such a list outside Wikipedia.  I'm not saying there's absolutely no value to it if you like Mac-trivia, but I don't think Wikipedia is really the place.  For one thing, it's skating closer to original research than I'm happy with. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Trivia lists don't really belong here on an encyclopedia, they're unprofessional and open the article up to too many single edits by people adding more and more film names where they saw a Mac. — Wackymacs 06:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: Opening a computer and replacing the hard drive must not void the warranty in some jurisdictions including Australia and the United States.
See also the US Federal Trade Commission's Information on warranties. (Scroll down to "Tie-In Sales")
From the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act source: 
:(c) No warrantor may condition the continued validity of a warranty on the use of only authorized repair service and/or authorized replacement parts for non-warranty service and maintenance. For example,  provisions such as, "This warranty is void if service is performed by anyone other than an authorized 'ABC' dealer and all replacement parts must be genuine 'ABC' parts," and the like, are prohibited where the service or parts are not covered by the warranty.  These provisions violate the Act in two ways. First, they violate the section 102(c) ban against tying arrangements. Second, such provisions are deceptive under section 110 of the Act, because a warrantor cannot, as a matter of law, avoid liability under a written warranty where a defect is unrelated to the use by a consumer of "unauthorized" articles or service. This does not preclude  a warrantor from expressly excluding liability for defects or damage caused by such "unauthorized" articles or service; nor does it preclude the warrantor from denying liability where the warrantor can demonstrate that the defect or damage was so caused.
The warranty may only be voided on parts that the manufacturer can prove were damaged as a result of the outside repair. That merely opening the case can legally void a warranty is a common misconception.
-- wac(talk contrib) 02:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warranty Voiding Claims