Talk:IMac (Intel-based)

message: Hello all,
I am requesting that someone more versed in Wikipedia editing add a column to the Aluminum iMac Specifications table for the mid-2009 iMac. While it shares most of its specifications with the early 2009 model, it has in fact a slightly different  specs in processor power, is missing the infrared sensor, and no built in Bluetooth. The model line numbers are also different from the early 2009 iMacs (MC015/LL*). I also have seen references to other educational models in different specifications tables on this page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RocketeerBama (talk • contribs) 12:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

message: I have boldly changed references to the latest iMac to iMac Santa Rosa.   This better encompasses the technological changes, particularly the high end option for a Core 2 Extreme processor. An alternative name change that occurred to me after editing the Macintosh Timeline is iMac Core 2 Second Generation.  Thoughts?  Comments?  Apple is referring to the new line as iMac Mid 2007.  -GnuTurbo 20:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed it back. They do not have the Santa Rosa chipsets in them. Apple refers to them as Mid-2007, and they are. --Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 22:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, but they do have the Santa Rosa chipsets in them.  And there are many other sources that confirm.  Because of this, I am reverting your change.  Please note additionally that the mid-2007 moniker was not previously applied to these models on this article.  -GnuTurbo 19:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The iMac has a Crestline chipset, but it doesn't use the Santa Rosa platform. See wikipedia's own page on Sant Rosa. The iMac does not have Intel Wifi, as is required for Santa Rosa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrino#Santa_Rosa_platform_.282007.29 --Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 01:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Making reference to Wikipedia's page on Santa Rosa does not resolve the issue.  I have provided ample verifiable sources in support of my claim.  To convincingly contradict my claim you will need to provide verification from outside Wikipedia.  You will also need to avoid original research. -GnuTurbo 11:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate that my research is not valid, however, neither is yours. In all your links, it is only CALLED santa rosa, just as you are (incorrectly) calling it. Show some links about the insides of the iMac and the requirements for Santa Rosa and how it meets said requirements. Until then , I am reverting your change and am going to do research on my end.--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 15:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adam is right, it does not use the full Santa Rosa specs - it is often (erroneously) called that because it shares many things in common. 216.99.217.92 16:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20060307corp_b.htm Prove to me it has the Intel WiFi, and you can call it Santa Rosa. --Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 17:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  I have edited out all references to Santa Rosa, and until we get this straightened out, I don't think it needs to be put back in. I have sourced the fact that it uses Intel Core 2 Duo and have changed the title to reflect the actual name (iMac (Mid-2007)) I have also added a note about discussing any santa rosa edits on the talk page first. --Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 02:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  I'm having someone with a new iMac run a test on it to see about the WiFi. when he gets the results, I will source them, and we will decide then.--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 19:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You need to read this again: no original research. If somehow you and your friend overcome the verifiability problems of conducting your own research (for instance, your friend has access to a well-known publication that accepts his work), you still have to overcome the undue weight requirements and maintain a neutral point of view.  There are a lot of problems with what you are proposing.  It seems unlikely any decision will be made in your favor. -GnuTurbo 23:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not going to invest any more time in this. If I come across a "well known publication" I'll get back to you. I'm not going to fight with you, as you seem to have plenty of time to revert and revert. However, if the iMac in question ITSELF states IN its OWN firmware that it does NOT meet the requirements for Santa Rosa, as seen here: http://forums.macnn.com/58/imac-emac-and-mac-mini/346932/what-is-the-name-new-imac/#post3477399, then I don't think the "Original Research" GUIDELINE (i.e. not rule) should usurp that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamfc (talk • contribs) 20:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was amusing.  I actually thought you were going to point me at this forum thread.  What I would suggest is gather your best evidence (try to find a more recent Intel article) and email that to the various editors/authors of the articles I have cited and see if you can convince them to change their position on whether the new iMac is Santa Rosa or not.  I am not sure if this kind of "tampering" is legit, but you could probably if you are successful at least establish controversy, even if you are a part of it. iMac Crestline, anyone? ;-) -GnuTurbo 23:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am, however, going to change the NAME of the iMac on this page because it doesn't follow naming convwentions previously used here. The other iMacs here are named core duo and core 2 duo, respectively. Those are processors. Then this one is named Santa Rosa, which is a platform. So I am changing the name to Core 2 Duo (Aluminum) (the processor, followed by Aluminum to differentiate it.)--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 02:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The new iMac, at least the 24-inch model, uses both Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme processors.  Also, as noted in the link you provided, aluminum is a bad way to differentiate the model since it is very likely the next models will also continue to be aluminum.  It also does not tell us about the technology inside, whereas Core Duo, Core 2 Duo, and Santa Rosa do.  Reverted. -GnuTurbo 17:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GnuTurbo: Do you dispute that Santa Rosa requires Intel wifi or that the iMac has non-Intel wifi? Once you put the two of those together, you must come to the conclusion that the iMac does not deserve the Santa Rosa brand. Mduell2 20:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  iMac Santa Rosa 

message: There is no such thing as a "Santa Rosa chipset". Santa Rosa is a platform. This platform consists (among other things) of a Crestline chipset. If you want to call the iMac by its chipset, call it Crestline. In addition, Santa Rosa is a Centrino platform. Centrino requires Intel CPU, chipset, and WiFi card. Apple has never *ever* used an Intel wireless chipset hence not a single Mac can be called Centrino at all (that's also why  you never see Apple using the Centrino moniker or label). Therefore this iMac also can certainly not be Santa Rosa.
Also, please don't tell me that many Mac sites call it Santa Rosa. That's entirely irrelevant because there's ample proof that it can't be:
* Intel Santa Rosa specs showing SR requires Intel WiFi chipset: http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20060307corp_b.htm
* New iMac doesn't have Intel WiFi: http://forums.macnn.com/58/imac-emac-and-mac-mini/346932/what-is-the-name-new-imac/#post3477399
The reason they are doing this is because for a long time all Intel released was the platform name Santa Rosa. The Crestline codename was only published later. By that time everybody had already started using Santa Rosa for the platform and th chipset. In the PC world this isn;t such a problem, because most notebooks not only use Crestline, but also the Intel Kedron WiFi chipset and are actually Centrinos (Santa Rosa). The iM<ac and MacBook Pro however, definitely don't use Intel's Kedron, but an Atheros chipset.
It is understandable how so many sites started publishing the wrong name and using the wrong chipset codename., Nevertheless, the facts are clear and there is zero doubt that
* SR isn't a chipset
* Macs don't use Intel WiFi chipsets.--84.73.140.109 20:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Stop Spreading Misinformation 

message: Until this issue is resolved, I will be removing all refences to Crestline and/or Santa Rosa. If anyone is to add such references (or revert the article), I will remove the references and request that an admin lock this article until this issue is resolved. Butterfly0fdoom 05:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As on the MBP page, I appreciate your rational decision. It's better to refrain from publishing chipset information than further spreading misinformation.--84.73.140.109 07:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: So we agrees, then. Case closed. I don't want to be seeing any more Centrino references in any of the Mac articles or else. Butterfly0fdoom 15:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  yay! And if anyone else wants to write to the Press Contact for Mac Hardware regarding this issue for a definite answer, please do. I have written, but have not received a response. perhaps with more emails, we will get a response.--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 17:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interim Solution

message: With us calling the article "Intel iMac" I think there is a fair chance some people are going to be confused and think this is about iMacs produced by Intel. Perhaps it would be better to move it to "iMac (Intel-based)" or "Intel-based iMac" which is what Apple appear to use to disambiguate these models on their support pages. http://www.apple.com/support/hardware/ AlistairMcMillan 01:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should be trying our best to use the precise names Apple uses, instead of inventing our own.   -/- Warren 03:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  iMac (Intel-based) seems good for consistency, since we are moving towards using Apple's names exclusively.  -GnuTurbo 13:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with both of you. iMac (Intel-based) sounds better than Intel iMac. To some the latter could imply Intel manufactured it.--129.129.128.64 13:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I further the agreement. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Concur, iMac (Intel-based) sounds much better and is more consistent with using Apple's official terminolgy. Butterfly0fdoom 15:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 16:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then, with 5 "agree"s, shall we move the article? Butterfly0fdoom 20:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "Intel iMac" a good title for the article? 

message: Why would the computer specs section be better organized in a table? All a table will do is put a line where it is already very clear one section ends and another begins.--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 18:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If done well it increases the articles readability. It's been done quite successfully on MacBook and to some extent on MacBook Pro (15.4" section). Nja247 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, yeah... I see what you mean. It would be better if it is done a la the MacBook article.--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 02:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup? 

message: AlastairMcMillan thinks adding model info would make this article too cataloguish. I disagree; in fact, I added the data after coming here to find just this information. Other opinions? PRRfan (talk) 07:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with AlistairMcMillan. Model numbers have no encyclopedic value; even more so since the model numbers given here are hopelessly outdated and the numbers of the current iMac generation are not given. There are more than enough websites (including apple.com which is referenced already in the article) which give that kind of information. And quite frankly, I think adding these model numbers is basically nothing more than a shameless plug for everymac.com which I find in itself fairly abysmal.--213.80.127.142 (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Include model info?

message: With links to specs at Everymac.com:
* MA406LL/A: 1.83Ghz 17-inch (IG)
* MA199LL: 1.83Ghz 17-inch
* MA200LL: 2.0Ghz 20-inch
* MA710LL: 1.83Ghz 17-inch (IG)
* MA590LL: 2.0Ghz 17-inch
: I agree with AlistairMcMillan. Model numbers have no encyclopedic value; even more so since the model numbers given here are hopelessly outdated and the numbers of the current iMac generation are not given. There are more than enough websites (including apple.com which is referenced already in the article) which give that kind of information. And quite frankly, I think adding these model numbers is basically nothing more than a shameless plug for everymac.com which I find in itself fairly abysmal.--213.80.127.142 (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List by model number

message: Specifications of aluminium iMacs from 2007 through 2009
Component	Intel Core 2 Duo                               	Intel Core 2 Duo                                	Intel Core 2 Duo                             	Intel Core 2 Duo                               	Intel Core 2 Duo                     	Intel Core 2 Duo
Model    	Early 2008                                	Early 2008                                 	Early 2009                              	Early 2009                                	                                     	
Display  	glossy glass-covered widescreen 16:10          	glossy glass-covered widescreen 16:10           	glossy glass-covered widescreen 16:10        	glossy glass-covered widescreen 16:10          	glossy glass-covered widescreen 16:10	glossy glass-covered widescreen 16:10
Display  	20", 1680 × 1050                               	24", 1920 × 1200 IPS                            	20", 1680 × 1050                             	24", 1920 × 1200 IPS                           	                                     	
Graphics 	ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT with 128MB of GDDR3 SDRAM	ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO with 256MB of GDDR3 SDRAM	nVidia GeForce 9400M with 256MB shared memory	nVidia GeForce GT 120 with 256MB of GDDR3 SDRAM	                                     	
Graphics 	                                               	                                                	                                             	                                               	                                     	
Anyone know why the spec tables for anything before 2012 were deleted?  I know the machines are obsolete and no longer supported, but that doesn't mean the information isn't important, and many of the machines are still being used. Can the tables be restored? Fh1 (talk) 04:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small/Large Columns Proposal 

message: I updated the tech specs for the iMac that was released today and realized that this article appears to be fragmented between iMac and iMac (Intel-Based). I think it would be a good idea to merge the two and to include information on the new imac like technology specifications from late 2012. Elangsto (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge iMac with this page 

message: The article talks about the removal of firewire 400 but not the addition of 800. I know current imacs have 800 so when was it added? Plugwash (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  firewire 

message: This article doesn't mention anything about the 2012 Core i line of iMacs and the latest tech specs havent been put on either (currently featured on http://www.apple.com/imac/). It's like the page just froze in mid-2011. — Supuhstar * — 17:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  No 2012 Core i iMac 

message: Hey guys, I have been reading through all the iMac articles and related articles and it seems there is a lot of random information sitting about in different places. The arrangement of the aritcles is somewhat confusing and it is difficult to find a general summary without knowing the specifics i.e The G5 is different to the 'polycarbonate' Mac. I propose we merge some of the articles and maybe produce some more individual articles to arrange them better. For example each Intel Basded Imac could have its own article steming from the intel imac page. Then it wouldnt all be crammed into one. Also the 'iMac page' should excplain the differences between Imac and Intel Based, with a clear link to the Intel based iMacs article. I believbe this as when people type into wiki they most likely type 'iMac', instead of 'Intel based iMac'.--Tacita620 (talk) 12:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's Improve

message: I split the info on the 5k iMac into a subsection because I feel there is enough additional info on the 5k models that should be added to justify it's own subsection. There needs to be some info added on the custom solution Apple came up with to drive the 5k display since the standard HDMI and DisplayPort standards at that time would work with a 5k display. --74.95.207.205 (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retina 5K iMac 

message: The previous generations of iMacs each have their own pages. I think it would make sense and maintain consistency with the other iMac pages if we split this article into Core/Core 2 iMacs, Aluminum iMacs, and Unibody iMacs.
MrHudson (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split this Page? 

message: The section about the redesign from polycarbonate to aluminium implies that it had an aluminium back from the beginning but I'm pretty sure the first aluminium iMac still had a separate, black plastic backside. --213.114.159.140 (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error regarding the aluminium iMac 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The reference  for the Release Date does not say that it was released in 2013 January, but instead states that new orders would be shipped in 2013 (Date of publication is December 7, 2012) but that current orders with a Dec 2012 date would be honored and fulfilled in 2012.  Which explains why my receipt is dated 2012 and not 2013 but that would be original research so I am using the existing reference as the authority.
Now, if you pre-ordered your 27-inch iMac already, don’t panic. Instead, check the shipping estimate you received; if it indicates a late December ship date, Apple intends to honor that promise. The delayed shipments should affect only new orders. [My emphasis]
So my revision would be to change the Release date from January 2013 to December 2012 this would also match all of Apples references to this model as being Late 2012 and not Early 2013.  If you disagree feel free to revert and discuss here.
TSpot-SF (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edit to 5.1 Specifications of slim unibody iMacs from 2012 to present 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I think there has been a great amount of confusion as to whether the mid-2017 21.5-inch 1080p iMac has been discontinued.  I want to clarify that, unlike the 4K Retina 21.5-inch iMacs, it has not been discontinued for now.  In order to actually buy it, you will need to head over to the 27-inch iMac selection page on the Apple website, and you will be able to switch over and find the lone 21.5-inch iMac (the $1099 model).  You can also just use this link to access it.  Even though the product is hidden, it is still being sold, contrary to popular belief.  This section was created just to inform those who did not know otherwise.
Smik550 (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mid-2017 21.5-inch iMac is NOT discontinued as of now 

message: I had opened -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMac_(Intel-based)#Specifications_of_iMacs_with_Retina_Display_from_2014_to_2022
The headers looked wrong, so I looked at TOC and found:
* 5	4th generation: Slim Unibody iMac
* 5.1	Specifications of Slim Unibody iMacs from 2012 to 2017
* 5.2	Retina revision
* 5.2.1	Specifications of iMacs with Retina Display from 2014 to 2022
Shouldn't the last line be "5.3 (blah blah blah)" ?
* No. The Retina Display is still part of the 4th generation. However, I will clean this up and maybe that will make it more clear.  —GoldRingChip 15:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting of "Specifications of iMacs with Retina Display from 2014 to 2022"