Talk:Mac (computer)/Archive 3

message: Main image should be something like this. 
http://www.geniusdv.com/weblog/archives/G5%20Mac.gif]
the old mac should be included in the history and the new version should be main.
Let's see... no it shouldn't. Dan 01:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's take today's FA, the Gettysburg Address. Do they have pictures of nice legible typed documents? No, they have the originals, as written by Lincoln himself. I wouldn't mind having having an image of the best screen and best tower together...but let's use the 128k (or 512k, there is some debate over that.)--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 13:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Image 

message: I'd just do some of this, but it's protected right now, so I'll list it here...
:: Apple heavily touts its releases with large special events and release-day events
This wording sounds redundant to me.  I'd suggest something more along the lines of "Apple heavily touts each new release with large special events and flamboyant marketing", or somesuch.
:Well, no, because "flamboyant" would give the impression that Apple itself is flaming, when in fact it is only Steve Jobs who is. Dan 01:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Quibbles 

message: The article currently states:
:: A significant difference between Macintosh computers and competitors' models (personal computers or PCs that run Microsoft Windows, Unix or Linux operating systems), is that Apple facilitates all aspects of its hardware, and creates its own OS; this is unique in the industry.
This needs to either be clarified in terms of what is meant, or removed if that cannot be determined.  I'm curious about what definition of "unique in the industry" could possibly make this universally true.  Sun is arguable, since although they _maintain_ their own OS (and have for years), they arguably did not create it ex nihilo originally; a similary argument could be applied to IBM.  DEC is another matter, however, and is probably the canonical example of the kind of top-to-bottom single-vendor integrated hardware and software environment the article is talking about, much moreso than Apple.  (Apple doesn't even manufacture their own CPUs...)  DEC is of decreasing relevance these days, but if the current state of affairs is what the article is talking about, then Sun and IBM both clearly qualify, since their OSes are just as much their own product as OS X is for Apple.  So what *is* that sentence supposed to be talking about?  Clarification (at least) is needed. -- Jonadab, 2006 Feb 09
No, not really. DEC is defunct... and was never geared towards the consumer mainstream. And Sun? Are you kidding? They're even less mainstream than DEC was. It says Apple FACILITATES, it doesn't make any mention of manufacturing their processors.
:Maybe this could be amended to "unique in the personal computing industry."
:Until Jonadab mentioned DEC, I forgot that they even existed. --Tachikoma 01:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't speak for other people, but I was thinking of the personal computer in the sense of what people (not just researchers) would use in their homes for web browsing, word processing, spreadsheet and other uses. When seen in that context, companies like Sun aren't even on the radar map of consumers. --Tachikoma 23:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Good point re: the server market. --Tachikoma 21:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: To be quite honest, it looked a whole hell of a lot better before Apple was a featured article, and we had a slew of changes... it was just fine before we started talking about "IBM-Compatables," and "vertical integration." Personally, I think it's wholly irrelevant- as well as boring. I'm also not sure why we're using "IBM-compatable-" if it's not an obsolete term, it certainly should be. Dan 01:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uniqueness in the Industry 

message: The Apple Style Guide for 2006 should be consulted, specifically:
::Don’t use a trademarked name in the possessive form. 
::Correct:  Learn more about iBook features. 
::Incorrect:  Learn more about iBook’s features. 
So, since Apple is trademarked, it should not be used with an apostrophe.  That document gets pretty in-depth and nowhere does it mention the term "Apple Macintosh"... perhaps the article should be just "Macintosh"? (However, lets try to stick to the possession discussion...) PaulC/T+ 09:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can't rename this Macintosh because that is a disambiguation name. The only other name could be Macintosh (personal computer) or something but I think Apple Macintosh is just fine. We don't have to go with these guidelines, seems awkward.  — Wackymacs 10:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, I haven't thought about that for a long time, but when I first came to the page, I was a little bewildered by the title. Dan 18:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't understand why you would be bewildered by 'Apple Macintosh' as a title. :-/ — Wackymacs 18:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ah, sorry... I had a feeling that last sentence would screw things up. I don't actually think the title of the article should be changed (although I agree with Dan)-I was getting at the discussion of calling the computer an "Apple Power Mac G5" (see below discussion) and how that wasn't correct according to the above resource.  Sorry for the confusion.  PaulC/T+ 17:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apple Macintosh (and possession) 

message: I'll cut right to the chase: this page is MASSIVELY overlinked.  I spent quite a bit of time this afternoon removing duplicate links and making significant corrections to grammar, usage, and punctuation, only to have my edits reverted by Angelic Wraith.   I direct everyone involved in editing this article to the Manual of Style (links) page and ask that you simply step back, take a look at the entry, and realize how very much of the text consists of links.  I am going to revert once back to my previous edit as I fear many important grammatical and other inarguable fixes were lost in the last edit, and I ask that before anyone begins a revert war that the topic be hashed out here.  My changes go directly toward meeting the requirements set forth in the Manual of Style and detract in no way from the content of the page. ⇒ BRossow T/C 00:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Angelic Wraith, please don't revert edits like this - we are trying to go with the manual of style guidelines by not overlinking. I agree, this page is massively overlinked. — Wackymacs 12:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have noticed the same problems. Agree with Wackymacs.--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 12:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlinking 

message: There is an error in the caption for the very first photo at the top of the page. The computer is the second Macintosh, the 512k "Fat Mac." If you look at the enlarged version, the screen of the Macintosh is showing the "about this Macintosh" window, which clearly states that the installed memory is 512k. anonymous
:Good eye! I corrected the captions on the photo itself and in Wikimedia Commons. Not sure what to do with the caption in the article itself as I hate to lose a good image like this one. ⇒ BRossow T/C 22:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But will you do it running System 4.1?  ;-) ⇒ BRossow T/C 04:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a Mac expert, but look at this page where the original image came from.  You'll see that there's also a photo of the back of this machine, which shows it to be the 128K model I think (someone who really knows about Macs please confirm this!).--Pharos 21:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't make out anything ram wise on the back, but I see 512k on the front. The site says it's 128k (look at the URL).--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 21:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't say anything specific, but their image is clearly different from our image of the back of a 512K model.  My only concern is the possiblity that these are two different machines, as this page says there are two in their collection.  I also notice that the image we are using at its source has "pmac" in the URL; could that have any significance?  Anyway, I guess we could just take them at their word on the identication.--Pharos 22:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Caption error

message: Can we get rid of that? Especially sicne its the fetured article. I would but i dont know where it is in the code:(
Keeperoftheseal 01:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Periced Penis 

message: Worked great while it lasted... :/
TJSwoboda 01:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOCK THIS PAGE AT ONCE~ 

message: Going back to the 1980s and early 90s.. One thing that should be added.. Apple's proprietary technology caused their peripherals to cost more than similar items produced for the PC.  For example, if you wanted to buy a printer for your Apple, it would cost $100 more (or something like that) just because it was for an Apple.
Back then, IBM tried to sue other companies that were "cloning" their machines.  They lost.  This led to a huge drop in the price of IBM computers.  It also meant that Apple lost the market to the cheaper IBM compatibles.  You could buy an IBM compatible computer from any number of different makers.  Once these cheaper machines became more common, many new companies sprung up to produce different parts for IBM computers (Graphics cards, hard drives, etc..).  Contrast this with Apple who wanted to produce everything themselves.
Apple's products were more like the "establishment" than their marketing would admit.  Many people resented the proprietary system.  They were seen as the people who wanted to sell you a machine that only their widgets would work with.
There's an interesting quote of something Bill Gates said to Steve Jobs(?).  He said it was not about who produced better software (or a computer for that matter).  It was about gaining enough market share to be the dominant system.  (so that everyone used the same type of systems and they were compatible)  The improvements to IBM computers would happen in time anyways.  
To this day, there are still people who would not buy an Apple computer because of the way they did business back then.  Their computers at times were a little more advanced, but their business practices were not.  Accountable Government 04:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advantages, disadvantages and criticisms Section 

message: Is there a case for a section heading "Common misconceptions"? For example, the oft-repeated but false assertion that Macs don't support multi-button mice, etc. I'm sure there are plenty of others. Of course, what we DONT want is a place for advocacy of any kind - just the facts. Thoughts? Graham 04:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can cite these common misconceptions then yes. Mike (T C)  04:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Realistically, citing these things is difficult. Most Mac users are aware of what the misconceptions are, so they are easily stated. However, if you want each one backed up with a reliable citation, that isn't likely to happen, given the nature of the thing. Being a misconception, few people are willing to stand by a statement such as "Macs can't use a right-click" and publish that somewhere at a link that will remain stable. I expect there are many forums where you can find such statements, but I doubt if anyone is going to think that's a reliable citation. I still think the section would be worthwhile, since in itself if becomes a simple way to correct those misconceptions - for example, just the other day someone (over at Apple, the moron) wrote something to the effect that Macs don't accept right-clicks. Or maybe it's not Wikipedia's job to do this, however neutrally and dispassionately? Graham 04:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The wiki isn't really the place for it, and if it isn't verifiable it will be deleted is all (not by me but someone). Where did you read the right click comment? Because that would be verification enough (right clicks on his mighty mouse). Mike (T C)  05:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just about right-clicks, though that is a very common one. That's my point - you can read such ignorant remarks most days of the week on e.g. Slashdot, but I don't think that really counts as a citation. Most Mac users will be familiar with the misconceptions they have to deal with every day (prices too high, can't right-click, can't share files with Windows, takes >20 minutes to copy a 17M file, there are no games, and so on). The difficulty to my mind isn't getting a sizable number of wikipedians to agree that these ARE common misconceptions that we all recognise, but in presenting them without advocacy. Graham 05:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though you both have good points, the myths can be cited. Look , , ,  (humorous, but mentions the same ones) and  from Apple, for good measure. Also importantly, the facts that debunk them can (and must) be cited. So, I'm in favor for a myths/misconceptions section. I know of one other similar section in Wikipedia, Breakdancing#Myths. Arru 10:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said if you can cite the myths, and the the facts that debunk them then go for it, I just know if we put a section of myths up, without anything to back them up as myths (or if it looks like we pulled them outta our ass) they will not survive. Thanks for looking up some citations though, I will write the section up =). Mike (T C)  19:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It is a half truth, there are games for macs, there isnt the selection there is on the PC (and sometimes this is a good thing, cuts out all the crappy ones lol). 99% of the main popular games are available for mac tho, the sims, warcraft 3 and World of Warcraft etc. I always get confused when I look at your username btw dan, it already reads like Angela Wraith, then when I look your signature is male lol sorry funny but true! Mike (T C)  02:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Common misconceptions?