Talk:MacBook (2006–2012)

message: There is no mention of audio at all in this article, how come? What are the audio capabilities of these computers, is there any difference between models?
All MacBook models have a 3.5mm minijack audio out, my MacBook2,1 also has a 3.5 mm audio in.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.49.206.217 (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Audio capabilities

message: Who wrote that directly transcluded navigation box at the bottom of the page?  Is it necessary?  Should it be a template/what is trying to be accomplished? ~ PaulT+/C 23:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally don't see how it's something to worry over, but if interested this may be of some use to you. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apple Model Navigation 

message: Should this article observe Apple's apparent naming convention when referring to its products, to exclude "the" from subjects, such as "MacBook is made of Aluminum" or "Many people use MacBook for video editing"? I believe the article for iPhone uses this naming convention. JagunTalkContribs 02:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Could do, but then again this is an encyclopaedia -- not Apple. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

text: In general I am a supporter of giving companies some extra leeway with names that deliberately break English rules (AMD Live!, eBay), but dropping the "the" seems to break a fundamental rule in a confusing way for no benefit whatsoever.  I see no reason to replicate such a horrible practice, and I have never seen anyone outside Apple did so.  iPhone appears to consistently refer to the device as "the iPhone". — Aluvus t/c 08:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  So here's a fun language question: Why do we expect "The" in front of iPhone but not Mac OS X?   Warren -talk- 11:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because we treat iPhones as a generic class of unique objects (I opened the magazine and turned on the iPhone), but handle OS X and other software as the proper name of a single thing (I opened Car and Driver and booted OS X).  This latter use is maybe something of a hack, since there may be lots of copies of that "single thing", but it is what English speakers have settled on when refering to many forms of media. You might say something about "my copy of OS X", but you would get confused looks if you talked about "my copy of iPhone", much as if you had described reading "the Car and Driver" or, yes, using "the Google".  And of course there are exceptions ("the Bible").  The subtleties of this (somewhat arbitrary, but generally well-defined) distinction often stymie ESL speakers, but then Apple's usage is so problematic that even Apple's marketing isn't consistent; TV ads describe "the iPhone 3G", and this page uses both forms in the same paragraph. — Aluvus t/c 12:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK Thanks. I was mistaken about the iPhone article. Let's keep this article the same way. 01:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming convention 

message: How odd, if I look up the model number listed under the 'newest' polycarbonate, MB466LL/A, I get the 2.0ghz Macbook Al instead.  There was no Polycarbonate released on Oct 14, 2008, however I believe it was still available for purchase. --TIB (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Oct 14 2008 macbook under Polycarbonate is actually the Aluminum 

message: This needs to be clarified and added.  I'm not wikiliterate enough to do it without screwing the article up.  The article states DDR2, but the Apple site says DDR3 now, and I think the White one has 667 and the aluminum the 1000 or something MHz.  Thanks
see http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/macbook
:Well I checked it out mate, and it seems the article is correct. The current White model uses 1066 MHz for the CPU, but 667 MHz DDR 2 for memory (according to apple here). And the alum is 1066 MHz for both, and uses DDR 3 (which is what the article says already). If I'm missing the issue please let me know. Cheers. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just edited this to add that you can put DDR2 800 in the MacBook white - I have both systems. The difference between the White and Alu MacBooks in this area is that the Alu one takes DDR3 RAM, and the White one takes DDR2 RAM. They share the same NVidia MCP79 controller, which supports either DDR3 at 1066 Mhz or DDR2 at 800 Mhz. DDR2 800 is supported by Mac OS, and this works perfectly in a white MacBook (2.0, the 2.13 one comes with DDR2 800 RAM anyway). If anyone disputes this, here's the doc on the NVidia website if a reference is needed: MCP79 Spec. SmackEater (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macbook White versus Aluminum Memory Speed 

message: I would like to nominate this article for A-Class. I need two supports from two uninvolved editors. - Sk8er5000 (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't consider Airplaneman uninvolved. He's heavily involved with Macintosh articles. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 03:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what "uninvolved" means in this instance is involvement in improving the specific article. Airplaneman  ✈ 03:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A-Class 

message: I had a chat with an online Apple expert (transcript here) and she said that the MacBook is only capable of displaying 6 bits per channel, which is 262,144 colors, less than the "millions of colors" stated on the MacBook specs page. Kevin chen2003 (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately that would be original research to include that information.--Terrillja talk 00:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are other people who have noticed this: 
http://peewaiweb.free.fr/
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2008/03/apple-quietly-settles-lawsuit-over-dithered-laptop-displays.ars
http://www.raoulpop.com/2008/apple-still-not-transparent-about-its-hardware-specs/
And of course, Google: http://www.google.com/search?q=macbook+dithering
Kevin chen2003 (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screen colors 

message: Maybe, if anybody knows, we can put the future releases for this model (does Apple announce it or is it a surprise?). When is the new one coming out? I would think it would be this summer.--Airplaneman (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Apple doesn't announce anything until it's out. They are probably better with their secrets than the CIA. Not saying much there though...--Terrillja talk 23:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I guess that means there won't be a "Future" section...--Airplaneman (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future 

message: I recommend we replace the unibody in the infobox with the White as the MacBook is now the White model. Aside from the one unibody release, they've all been plastic. Nja247 20:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like that's already been done. Kevin chen2003 (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: We are thinking of purchasing last year's 2009 version Macbook. We did hear that the Macbook eventually has some wear and tear/chipping on the palm rest due to the design. Anyone else experience this? Does applecare cover to fix this?
Thanx to all who respond!
74.75.62.49 (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a forum. You'll get much better feedback at macrumors.com or an equivalent online forum. Airplaneman  ✈ 01:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? wearing on the palm rest on the 2009 Apple Macbook 

message: This looks like an interesting one. It should be possible to put 8 GB of RAM (2 4 GB DIMMs) in the NVidia based 9400M white MacBook, the aluminium unibody MacBook and the two plastic polycarbonate MacBooks. However, I can't find any references that OS X supports this (It does, trust me!). I've found a reference from NVidia saying that the system theoretically supports it but OS X doesn't and have added this to the article. I also know from forums that the aluminium unibody MacBook didn't support this until a firmware update came out. The problem is; the firmware update doesn't state it adds this support (I'm very sure it is  this one). Since it came out (and plenty of people on macrumors reported that 8 GB works here onwards, but it's a forum, so not a reliable source, with links to other non-reliable sources...), myself and two colleagues have successfully upgraded our MacBooks to 8 GB, and it works nicely (three more non-reliable sources right here :) ).
It should also be possible to put 8 GB of RAM in the unibody and non-unibody MCP79 based white macbooks - whether apple has enabled this is another question. SmackEater (talk) 07:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's interesting. I think that's a more useful link than the NVidia one; NVidia saying what a chipset can do isn't especially relevant to what the Mac can do. Thanks for looking into this. --Steven Fisher (talk) 06:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maximum RAM in NVidia 9400M MacBooks

message: Jonathan Ive, the designer behind all the modern Apple devices hasn't been mentioned in any one of the articles associated with the Apple devices he created, you could argue that Ive is the reason Apple is so famous today, I can only assume it's either due to ignorance or deliberate. Twobells (talk)
:Add one. --Steven Fisher (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: done.Twobells (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone has vandalized the article, removing the designers contribution, fixed.Twobells (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of designer? 

message: I have a MacBook which, according to the specs (cpu, ram, gpu, hdd), is a "Early 2009 (white)". Its Model identifier is MacBook5,2 and not, as it was written, 5,1. I've fixed that.
I also have the alluminium MacBook and I confirm that one is a 5,1 instead.
I've no idea about the "Mid 2009", listed as 5,2 too.
--Lo'oris (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  MacBook 5,x 

message: My 3.1 Macbook got a FSB go 667 Mhz and I bought it the Saturday the unibody MB launched.
You yould fix it!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.216.7 (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macbook 3.1: 667 Mhz FSB ----NOT-----800 

message: I read it at MacRumors that Apple has now stopped distribution to educational institutions as well. Could anybody confirm this, please? — User:WikiPanic (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apple Has Ceased Educational Distribution of MacBook? 

message: I always thought that "unibody" refers to the unique one-piece aluminum case of the 2008 MacBook.
I have never heard the later polycarbonate case called a "unibody" case until I went shopping for an aluminum unibody MacBook on eBay.
Some eBay sellers, knowing that second hand aluminum unibody macBooks sell for a premium, are calling the polycarbonate MacBooks "Unibody MacBooks." Notably, they do not list these computers as "plastic unibody" or "polycarbonate unibody," and the item descriptions do not warn the shopper that these machines are NOT "aluminum unibody" machines. Let the buyer beware.
To my knowledge, there is nothing special about the MacBook polycarbonate case. As far as I know, any injection-molded plastic case could fairly be called a "unibody" case. By comparison the aluminum unibody case for the MacBook was special indeed, and this kind of case is still used in the MacBook pro. To my knowledge, Apple has never referred to the polycarbonate case for the MacBook as a "unibody" case.
By comparison, the Macbook pro article on wikipedia does not call the polycarbonate case a "unibody" case. I suspect that eBay sellers might be manipulating this article to justify their mis-representation of their merchandise.
I'm not very skilled at Wikipedia editing. I suggest that others who take an interest in this topic agree to standard terminology: "unibody case" or "aluminum unibody case" for the 2008 MacBook and "polycarbonate case" for the later MacBooks.69.108.174.223 (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "polycarbonate unibody" is perhaps used to name the model in order to distinguish it from the original polycarbonate model. As for the manipulation of this article by eBay sellers, I don't think that's likely because most Apple-related media also refer to the model as the "polycarbonate unibody" MacBook. — User:WikiPanic (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polycarbonate unibody? 

message: Someone added a paragraph on the new 2015 MacBook laptop, then someone else added a split tag, suggesting the new 2015 MacBook should get it own article, feeling that it was really the start of a new line of laptops, rather a revival of the old line. Since then it appears someone just went ahead and split the article. I'm not so sure that that was the best course of action. I'm not truly convinced that the new 2015 Macbook is really so much different then the old MacBook series to warrant a separate article. My reasoning is as follows:
* The new MacBook (2015) is among the lesser priced laptops Apple currently sells. It is not a pro laptop the way the MacBook pro is. Since the MacBook name was used for Apple's lower end consumer laptops I think this qualifies. 
* While an argument can be made that this is really just a new version of the MacBook Air under a different name, I still think it can be properly considered a new version of the MacBook. The original MacBook Air got the word Air added to it's name because it was an extremely thin and light version of the MacBook and because it's original price point ($1700) was much higher then what MacBooks sold for in those days ($1100-$1500). Once the original MacBook line and name was discontinued in 2010, the MacBook Air line essentially took it's place. To me, the modern MacBook Airs really are just MacBooks for all intents and purpose since since the serve the low end laptops needs of Apple consumers.
* I have yet to hear any convincing argument that explains what the new MacBook (2015) has or doesn't have that makes it a separate line of laptop from the original MacBook line. Unless there is evidence that Apple plans to treat the new MacBook (2015) as whole new line of computers and not simply a revival of the MacBook line, then I don't think we should either. If at some point in the future it becomes cleat that it should have it's own article then we can separate it. 
So does anyone have any convincing arguments as to why the New MacBook (2015) should not simply be included in this article rather then having it's own article? If not, then I say merge it back into this article. --50.152.139.176 (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated view:Although the products are radically different, they share the same brand. If we consider the page to represent the brand rather than the product then they can co-exist on the same page without hurting my brain. – St3f (talk) 08:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Macbook - Is it a revival of the old Macbook line of notebooks or the start of a new line that is simply reusing the Macbook name? 

message: :Moved from section above per this comment. PaleAqua (talk) 02:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much anything is better than what we currently have. Technology moves fast and I believe that users are going to expect to see the latest Macbook when they search for 'Macbook'. Anything that gets the user an immediate image of the current model, even if this is on a disambiguation page, gets my support. St3f (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. The questions that I see is do we make MacBook a disambiguation page or brand page and how various generations are/are not split out. Anyone else have thoughts along this line? Going to ping the talk:MacBook (2015 version) page as well? Hopefully we can get a reasonable plan that has a good chance of consensus.  PaleAqua (talk) 02:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your suggestion to branch out. What annoys me at this point is that MacBook is treated as the main article, while the attention is now with the Retina MacBook, yet nothing is mentioned of it here aside from a hatnote and one sentence. I think using polycarbonate vs aluminium could work as well, since that is probably the main distinction. But for consistency I would be in favour of using the generation as the identifier. Alternatively, we should flesh out this article a bit more and make it inclusive of the Retina MacBook, but make a reference to the separate article for more details.--Totie (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate approach 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on MacBook. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090622231843/http://www.apple.com/macbook/specs.html to http://www.apple.com/macbook/specs.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100722123516/http://www.apple.com/macbook/specs.html to http://www.apple.com/macbook/specs.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There are ongoing disputes at the MacKeeper article. It could use more editors. Thanks.Adoring nanny (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could use more editors at MacKeeper 

message: I would like to suggest that this article should avoid talking about the 12-inch MacBook except for pointing out the differences. In section "criticisms and defects", there's a paragraph talking about the defect of the butterfly machinism which is totally not related to the "MacBook" in this article.Nskernel (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoid writing too much about the 12-inch MacBook 

message: I'd like opinions on how to categorize the "generations" in this article. Personally I think that, should we mention generations at all, what makes most sense by far is:
* 1st gen: Polycarbonate
* 2nd gen: Aluminum Unibody
* 3rd gen: Polycarbonate Unibody
as those are the three sections of the article. If we were to consider any of those the "same generation" then it would only make sense for them to be the same section, which thinking about it it really doesn't. They're all very distinct designs with clear differences between them. If anything it would make more sense imo to group the two Unibodies, as they're somewhat similar (though I still don't like that) but 2601:647:5000:fb0:256b:b0fd:50c8:3304 has been insisting on grouping Aluminum Unibody with Polycarbonate as "1st generation", which I personally find rather confusing.
I attempted to make a neutral change by simply removing any reference to a "generation" and honestly I think I prefer that to anything else actually as Apple never officially grouped these in generations anyways, but 2601:647:5000:fb0:256b:b0fd:50c8:3304 has been reverting any attempt to change it or even compromise.
So my current opinion is no mention of generations, with 3 separate as a second choice. 
Update: I think the current state of the article is tolerable so I'm not going to revert your edit, 2601:647:5000:fb0:9d94:da0b:de78:27e5, since you seem oddly passionate about this however I still think it would read better to not talk about "generations" at all. It's perfectly normal for a company (including Apple) to release a new generation of a product and continue selling the old one alongside it. Pk11 (talk) 06:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generations