Talk:Mac (computer)/Archive 2

message: 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)
replies: text: * As myself and Carnildo said in the FAC, It could be the Wikipedia skin you're using (ie. Classic instead of Monobook). I have no problems viewing this article in FireFox. — Wackymacs 16:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

text: *I have no such problem with FireFox also.  You seem to be asserting the problem is localized just to this page which I find highly improbable; there is not anything particularly special or different about the Wiki text.  Go to Mozilla Firefox and see if you have problems with the info box and the table of contents.  If you have a problem with that too, update to the latest FireFox.  If your problem is just specific to this page, my conclusion is it is system specific and not a problem with FireFox or Wikipedia.  --C S (Talk) 17:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I followed the above directions, but they mostly didn't apply to me. I disabled all my firefox extensions, which i guess were conflicting with something (?), because the page is the same as it is in IE now. But what happened to the corporate info box? 72.144.17.89 21:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

text: oops. 72.144.17.89 is me. forgot to login.B1oody8romance7 21:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: HUGE rendering difference in FireFox

message: *I would have to disagree with the todo list.  I don't think that the ipod should be mentioned in this article seeing as how it isn't a Macintosh rather a completely different product line from Apple.  Dan M 20:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * I think it's relevant (I made the todo list, by the way) - The iPod has had a significant so called "halo-effect" on sales of the Mac, Apple reported that many users who bought an iPod also bought a Mac because of it. Lots of PC users have switched because of the iPod. I think it's note-worthy. — Wackymacs 19:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I would agree with that as long as the article dosen't go too into detail about the iPod but focus on its affect on the Macintosh line.  Dan M 20:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: iPod

message: 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)
:Yep, there's lots of bathwater here! However, it's unusual to ever delete stuff from a talk page - I think that's discouraged simply because it avoids old arguments being rehashed. Compromise - I'll move "the cruft" to an subpage as an archive. It'll probably never be visited again, but it's there if anyone ever wants to revisit the Mac vs Wintel argument again... (yawn).  By the way - totally agree with above, there were far too many external links and many were totally inappropriate. Graham 00:06, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting the cruft from this page 

message: 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)
replies: text: One instance from their online store doesn't give much weight -- do you have further evidence for this? Every computer product I've bought from Apple in the last five years says "Mac". "Mac" (as well as "Macintosh") are registered trademarks of Apple, and in all of their marketing communications, Mac is used exclusively. scotts 00:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

text: The "Guidelines for Using Apple Trademarks and Copyrights" page at Apple's website contains numerous instances of "Macintosh" being the official name of the product line.--Patrick T. Wynne 04:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official name still "Macintosh" 

message: 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.
:You're certainly correct about the '900 not coming with a standard CD-ROM. I was in the market at the time and CD-ROMs were just becoming common then; Apple was selling their first external CD-ROM drive. The Quadra-840AV I bought later still didn't ship standard with a CD-ROM.
:Atlant 16:13, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology 

message: 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)
replies: text: No, the TAM was a special edition that sold few units. The LCD iMac was the first mainstream LCD Mac. Philwelch 19:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was still 'standard'.  And a desktop.  And the first desktop to come with a flat panel standard.  Other companies came out with flat-panel desktop PCs between then and the iMac G4, so if you discount the TAM, then the entire line about first LCD should be deleted.  I went and deleted the second part of that reference mentioning the Macintosh Portable as a first 'laptop' to include an LCD, simply because it wasn't.  Other companies had LCDs on portable/laptop computers well before the Mac Portable.  Ehurtley 04:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then remove the line entirely. It's not a "standard feature on their desktop systems" if it only came with one limited-edition system that cost $9999 at first release. Philwelch 19:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Flat panel chronology

message: 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?
:Anyone interested in a _little_ Mac "joke"? (84.0.21.217 22:43, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Macintosh Inclusion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Design language" 

message: Anon editor  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)
replies: text: Agreed.  While CreativeMac is a legitimate news site dedicated to DTP Macintosh articles, it is out of place in this article.  I don't think that it is spam (it hasn't been posted to any other Mac articles), we should at least move it to the bottom of the list or Desktop publishing. S.N. Hillbrand 13:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  too specialized external link? 

message: 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)
:Actually, the discussion above did not seem to reach any consensus regarding the issue, and I frankly did not see any strong arguments set forth that supported the inclusion of hypercard or applescript as Mac features "introduced or made common" to the realm of personal computing.  Perhaps hypercard has the stronger claim than applescript, however, given that Visual Basic largely followed the same paradigm (and was introduced after hypercard by some amount of time).  One should not forget REXX or the other Amiga scripting languages, however (I will try to check whether REXX came after HyperCard). —Ryanaxp July 3, 2005 21:15 (UTC)
::AppleScript is novel in that allows for natural-language scripting, which Visual Basic, while simple enough to learn, does not quite do. I think that "User programmability" should be kept because its inclusion in the Macintosh did make it more widespread in the home PC market. – Mipadi July 3, 2005 21:20 (UTC)
:::Then do you agree that the novelty of AppleScript lies in its natural-language-like syntax?  If so, I propose changing the relevant entry to clarify that AppleScript introduced programming syntax similar to natural-language. —Ryanaxp July 3, 2005 21:28 (UTC)
::::That seems to fall under User Programmability, and if a reader wants to know, they can always click the link to the AppleScript article.
::::I think the argument here, as above, is in the use of "innovation." Apple may not have had a computer with the first user programmability (in fact, they definitely didn't), but their use of HyperCard and AppleScript is innovative in that made it much simpler than on older computers, and made easy user programmability more widespread in the industry. I don't see why it's such a concern as to whether it is listed as "user programmability" or "GUI-based user programming and natural language syntax in scripting languages". – Mipadi July 3, 2005 21:38 (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)
thread_title: GUI-based scripting edit

message: 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)
replies: text: * Oh, I also forgot to mention about the image used at the very top of this article, I think that though the Mac OS X Tiger retail box is relevant and related to the Macintosh, it would be better to be placed on the Mac OS page, rather than this page. I think using the Macintosh logo (the smily two half face used in the Mac OS article) would be better on this article, as it is the general logo of the Macintosh, Finder and was previously (up until Mac OS X 10.3 panther), used on the OS X retail boxes. — Wackymacs 20:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Could we write up a specific To-do list? I'd love to help, but I don't even know where to start. --C-squared 13:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Yep, I'll do that soon, it will help us. — Wackymacs 15:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

text: * Sounds good, but history info for 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 seems to be missing. It jumps from talking about the iMac G3 in 1998 to talking about OS X in 2000 (Which is wrong, OS X 10.0 was released in 2001!!!), it misses out info about the failure of the Power Mac G4 Cube in 2000, and misses out crucial info of the new G4 Powerbooks which were released in 2003. I'm going to add lot's of the missing info. It seems the article is more about the past than the recent (past 5 years) and present. — Wackymacs 17:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Sorry, but OS X was, indeed, released in 1999!  Mac OS X Server 1.0 was released on March 16, 1999.  Yes, that's right.  The UNIX-based OS X was indeed available as a server product a full two years before the desktop version was released.  This release did not yet have 'Aqua', and looked more like the older Mac OS.  But it was OS X.  And note that it was indeed "OS X Server 1.0", not "10.0".  10.0 came out in 2001 at the same time as the desktop release of OS X 10.0.  Server 10.0 was 'Aquafied' just like the desktop version. Ehurtley 20:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Messy page

message: 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)
replies: text: * Sounds good, but history info for 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 seems to be missing. It jumps from talking about the iMac G3 in 1998 to talking about OS X in 2000 (Which is wrong, OS X 10.0 was released in 2001!!!), it misses out info about the failure of the Power Mac G4 Cube in 2000, and misses out crucial info of the new G4 Powerbooks which were released in 2003. I'm going to add lot's of the missing info. It seems the article is more about the past than the recent (past 5 years) and present. — Wackymacs 17:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Sorry, but OS X was, indeed, released in 1999!  Mac OS X Server 1.0 was released on March 16, 1999.  Yes, that's right.  The UNIX-based OS X was indeed available as a server product a full two years before the desktop version was released.  This release did not yet have 'Aqua', and looked more like the older Mac OS.  But it was OS X.  And note that it was indeed "OS X Server 1.0", not "10.0".  10.0 came out in 2001 at the same time as the desktop release of OS X 10.0.  Server 10.0 was 'Aquafied' just like the desktop version. Ehurtley 20:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Sorry, that was me that removed the bottom of the page, by accident68.209.19.232 21:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oops 

message: As Sdedeo has pointed out we need citations on several of our facts in the marketshare area. <FONT COLOR="#FF5500">TDS</FONT>  (talk • contribs)  05:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * I have added three sources for the market share/installed base information. They are in the References section. — Wackymacs 19:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Thanks =) <FONT COLOR="#FF5500">TDS</FONT>  (talk • contribs)  19:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Needed 

message: 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)
replies: text: That's because the timeline is already very cramped, and "Clamshell iBook" is too long for the space it has, and also because I think it is best to note the "official" names of the products unless they have none - the clamshell was initially only known as the iBook, and "Dual USB iBook" or "iBook (Dual USB)" has two drawbacks: The term is not clearly understood outside the Macintosh community, while "iBook (white)" (I've changed it a bit) is clear to anyone who's ever seen the two. Also, the iBook (Dual USB) name is sometimes used only for the very first model of the white iBook series, and that timeline section includes others (for example, the October 2001 revision of the iBook is called the "Late 2001 iBook" in my references, but it's still a white G3 iBook). As a side note, the timelines are not as hard to change as they look, I've now edited it so that the section edit link above it goes to the template itself. Just skip the definitions at the beginning, all lables and links work just like they do in normal MediaWiki markup (but watch out, there are no red links in timelines, the link is blue whether the target exists or not). I'm also copying this to Template talk:Timeline of Macintosh models. -- grm_wnr Esc 22:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  labels for ibooks 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dell Picture 

message: From the article:
:Starting mainly with the iMac G3, Apple also introduced the concept of an aesthetic case for their computers. Prior to the iMac, most computers were housed in an effective yet lackluster beige case. Apple pioneered colorful housings in the late 1990s, and has now moved on to white plastic and metal finishes. And continuing with the portability theme, all Macintosh computers are very small when compared to competitor's models. Examples include the Mac mini, quite arguably one of the smallest computers of all time, and the iMac G5, with the entire computer fitting in a two-inch screen. 
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)
replies: text: Hmmm... I'm need to add a Cult of the mac section as per the to do list above; I'll trim this down and have this be what mac users say is so good about the macs, along with other stuff, and we'll also give the "money over size" argument from a PC standpoint. --HereToHelp (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  aesthetic case