Talk:Mac (computer)/Archive 4

message: Found inaccuracies in the information ie. stating that the Mac Pro featured a Core 2 Duo and outdated information such as statements claiming that "current" Macs such as the "Power Mac g" which is most certainly not current, uses certain typed of RAM. Therefore I believe this article may need a cleanup. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spyzy (talk • contribs) 09:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Sorry, the link didn't show up in the edit summary.  links MoS  PaulC/T+ 05:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RV... s inside or outside the brackets... 

message: I don't see a star in the article. If it's a featured article, then there should be a star. Is there any particular reason that the star is missing? --141.213.196.250 09:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look in the right hand corner.--HereToHelp 12:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the featured article star in article? 

message: I've re-added macrumors.com because it is relevent, and has a high alexa ranking (2335 to be exact). If Apple does not appreciate this website in this article they can make a formal request to the Wikimedia foundation, but otherwise there is no reason not to add it. Mike (T C)  19:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no idea what an "alexa ranking" is, but I can assure you, if Apple doesn't want it here, it won't be a "formal request," it will be a legal demand. I know for a fact that Apple has taken legal action against rumor sites in the past. Dan 19:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) we are not a rumor site, however we can link to them. 2) alexa is a ranking website, we use it on here to judge notability of websites, [WP:WEB] for more info. Mike (T C)  21:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also to explain a bit more on the alexa ranking, 2335 is not enough to be notable enough to have its own article if you read the alexa test on WP:WEB, HOWEVER since the is an apple machintosh article/website the ranking is quite high, since alexa only tracks hits from windows computers, so IMO it is a high enough score. Any objections? Mike (T C)  21:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you could find more objectional externals links. Keep it in.--HereToHelp 22:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You're not making a whit of sense, Mike. Dan 01:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How so? Explain what dosen't make sense? Mike (T C)  05:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Saying that a site shouldn't be added because "Apple wouldn't like it" is ridiculous. Rumors are an enormous part of the Mac community.  Apple regularly acknowledges the existence of rumor sites with several references by Steve Jobs in keynotes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.97.27.85 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Didn't realize it was already linked through a separate article, I say removed it. Mike (T C)  23:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mac Rumors 

message: sprotected temporarily.  please unprotect after a few days.  +sj + 02:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unprotected. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 03:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sprot 

message: By that I simply mean that they haven't offered a BTO option of upgrading the processor on any of their laptops since, if I'm remembering correctly, their Pismo G3s. I suppose that it's not all that pertinent to where it's placed; it should perhaps be put somewhere else, though you obviously feel it shouldn't be placed anywhere at all. Dan 02:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It just didn't make sense in the context of the table. It read like it was the first time in years the processor was able to be upgraded to 2.16, which is something that is happening for the first time ever. I now understand what you mean by the sentence, but I still don't think it fits. Maybe adding a line about it to the main MacBook Pro article would be a better place for it? How about "It is the first Macintosh notebook with an Intel chip." or "For the first time in years the processor can be upgraded." instead? PaulC/T+ 12:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "For the first time in years"

message: The following paragraph seems irrelevant for the lead of this article:
"The original Macintosh operating system underwent many major revisions. However, the final version, Mac OS 9.2.2, still lacked many modern operating system features. In 2001, Apple introduced the new BSD Unix-based Mac OS X, featuring improved stability, true multitasking and multi-user capability, while supporting older “Classic” applications by providing a "Classic" compatibility layer. The current version of the Macintosh operating system is Mac OS X v10.4, which comes preinstalled in all new Macs, except for the Xserve which comes with Mac OS X Server. To complement the Macintosh, Apple has developed a series of digital media applications (collectively the iLife suite), three applications that are geared towards productivity (the iWork suite and FileMaker Pro), and software aimed at the creative professional market (Final Cut Studio, Aperture, Logic Pro, and Shake)."
It's talking about the history of the Mac OS, whereas the Apple Macintosh article ought to be about the computers themselves. Obviously a mention of the software is warranted, but not this much detail in the lead paragraphs, surely?
Instead, maybe a summary of the processor architectures, and a sentence or two about software? --Baryonic Being 16:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant second paragraph in lead? 

message: I've passed the article for inclusion in the release, but could we get rid of the unsourced statements in the article? I have no clue where to even begin looking, but if there's no source to a claim, you can find a source (unless it is common knowledge, or if the statement isn't even relevant, just take it out. Titoxd(?!?) 20:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Nominations|V0.5 nomination]] 

message: You put down "named after the McIntosh apple.", you might want to fix that.
: Why? That's correct! McIntosh is a type of Apple, if you didn't know.— Wackymacs 18:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  McIntosh? 

message: Is the XServe officially a Macintosh? Apple seemed to make a deliberate branding point at the WWDC keynote that it isn't - declaring that the Macintosh Intel transition was complete with the introduction of the Mac Pro, then introducing the XServe as a coda. For reference, Phil Schiller at the 17:38 in the WWDC keynote webcast:
"Now the Mac transition is complete. There is one other product that you don't really think of as a Mac, but it's a a really important product in our product line, and that's XServe."
:"Mac" doesn't appear in the section (in the left-hand sidebar) on the U.S. Apple Store main page, unlike the laptops in the "MacBook family" or the "Mac Desktops".
:On the other hand, at the hardware level, it's somewhat like a 1U Mac Pro, and it can run Mac OS X Server, so, aside from branding and from the fact that it probably sits in a computer room and probably doesn't spend much of its time running GUI code, it's a lot like a Macintosh, just as a PowerEdge or an IBM System x or ProLiant or... server is a lot like a PC - at the hardware level, those "PC server" machines are mostly "essentially more robust versions of the modern desktop IBM PC compatible", and can run the same or similar OSes to PC's, such as Windows Server 2003 and earlier server versions of the Windows NT line of OSes, or versions of various Unix-like systems.
:So, while it might not, strictly speaking, be a Macintosh, it's at least a very close cousin to a modern Macintosh, and possibly a sibling to one. Guy Harris 09:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Back in the days of the Apple Network Server, it was not considered a "Macintosh" since it did not run the MacOS. Also, I think Phil's statement about the transition being complete was a bit preemptive, as his next sentence, saying "...you don't really think of [the XServe] as a Mac..." means "You may not think of it as a Mac, but it is." Those two together, I believe make the XServe as much a Macintosh as an iBook or a Mac Pro is one. Frijole 19:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  XServe 

message: Greenpeace's "Green my Apple" campaign is opposed to toxic chemicals in iPods, not just Macs. Guy Harris 00:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Green my Apple" campaign isn't Macintosh-specific 

message: In particular, the 2005 figures should be replaced by the just-released figures from this last quarter. Thomas Ash 13:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide me link to these figures?--HereToHelp 13:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "1999 to the present: New beginnings" needs an update 

message: "Apple has a history of innovation and making bold changes that is met by a strong uptake of software upgrades.
[ . . .]
The design of the Macintosh operating system and the vigilance of Macintosh users[29] has contributed to the near-absence of the types of malware and spyware that plague Microsoft Windows users"
Both of these excerpts (especially the latter) seem rather biased. Seriously, "the vigilance of Macintosh users"? This sounds somewhat like an advertisement, and little like an encyclopedia entry. I'm aware that Macintosh has very vehement fans AND detractors, but at least some impartiality is called for here.
68.0.246.81 01:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the 2nd statement's biased... the first, not so much, as you can find plenty of those sorts of statements (where they're accurate - as I think they are here, but we can debate that) in WP, or even Brittanica. Hippo X 15:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loaded words/phrases? 

message: Just wanted to note concerns on the following paragraph from "Market share and demographics" section:
By 1997, there were more than 20 million Mac users, compared to an installed base of around 340 million Windows PCs.[13][14] Statistics from late 2003 indicate that Apple had 2.06% of the desktop share in the United States, which had increased to 2.88% by Q4 2004.[15] As of July, 2006, research firms IDC and Gartner reported that Apple's market share had increased to between 4.6% and 4.8%.[16] The actual installed base of Macintosh computers is extremely hard to determine, with numbers ranging from a conservative 3%[17] to an optimistic 16%.[18]
The part that strikes me as odd is that the first sentence would indicate a share of the installed base on the order of 5.5% in 1997, while the following sentences speak to "market share" and indicate figures of less than 3%.  It seems that since the return of Jobs, Apple computers have been making huge progress in market share, and that this would be reflected as an increase in the installed base.  The last sentence fails to make any distinction between worldwide installed base and United States installed base.  This ought to be clarified as well.
--71.36.251.182 21:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Market Share  

message: I'm conducting a survey about the Apple II -- any former users are invited to participate.
Come to User:Applephreak/survey
Applephreak 19:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Apple II survey