Talk:Mac (computer)/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Intro parenthetical note

Is this parenthetical note really needed?

(In both cases, the hardware can run other operating systems; modern Macintoshes, like PC's, are capable of running operating systems such as Linux, FreeBSD and Windows.)

First of all, the "other operating systems" doesn't make sense because the article has not yet introduced the normal/primary operating system of Macintoshes (MacOS). Secondly, I don't see how the hardware being able to run other OSs is so central to the basic introduction of the computer. It's certainly covered elsewhere. I recommend this sentence be removed. Jpp42 06:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It's called Mac, not Macintosh

As is even stated in the beginning of the article, it's now called Mac and not Macintosh. Apple hasn't used the term Macintosh for several years. Hence, this article should be moved to Mac (computer) or something akin, not remain at Macintosh. 84.217.132.198 19:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

A quick google gives the Macintosh Products Guide on apple.com, so they still use the term Macintosh.--Anss123 15:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but that is pretty much the only exception that google finds. It isn't odd that the old term slips through occasionally. But you can't really argue with the fact that in close to 100% of all other cases, they uses the term "Mac" only. A handful of exceptions hardly justifies the naming of this article, IMO. I insist; it should be moved! 84.217.139.126 09:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Apple still refers to them as "Macintosh® computers" in press releases. — Miles (Talk) 04:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Which is only yet another exception. "Mac" is the term used almost all the time, especially in marketing - honestly, why do you try to argue with this? 84.217.139.126 13:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me take this far away from the world of computers for a second. Take someone named Nathaniel. All of his friends call him Nate (a shortening or nickname). Even his parents call him Nate (like Steve Jobs calling Macintosh computers Macs). However, Nate's official name is still Nathaniel and the only way he can change this is by officially requesting change and going through the legal process. As Apple has never officially announced a change or used the word Mac in official uses (press releases), then a Mac is still Macintosh as Nate is still Nathaniel. Sorry if this is long and confusing, but it shows how people use shortening and nicknames, as Mac is a shortening of Macintosh. Penman 1701 16:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but I'm afraid your example could just as well be an argument for my standpoint... I mean just look at Nate McMillan, Nate Mendel, Nate Robinson, Nate Archibald, Nate Thurmond, Nate Richert, Nate Clements and so on. ;) And yes, Apple does use the word "Mac" in press releases too, just look at the very same one that was linked by Miles to illustrate how they use the word "Macintosh". "Mac" is the term used in virtually all their branding, and this is an article about the brand... 84.217.139.126 22:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Nathaniel was a horrible example. :P A better analogy might be Coca-Cola vs "Coke"—not really, because "Coca-Cola" is still heavily used and marketed... but "Coca-Cola Cherry"? Really? I digress. Yes, the computers are referred to as "Macs" by both Apple and the general population. Yes, "Macintosh" may well be on its way out. But it hasn't been officially deprecated—the latest style guide style guide still includes the term, and the install notes for the Leopard beta say, "You must have a Macintosh computer...". Unless Apple announces an "Apple Computer, Inc."→"Apple Inc."-style shift, I think the current location is the most appropriate for an article that discusses the computer line not just as it is today but its history since 1984. — Miles 04:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The terms aren't really synonymous: "Macintosh" is an adjective, and "Mac" is usually a noun that, IMO, is short for "Macintosh computer".

FWIW, Apple's SEC Form 10-Q references them as "Macintosh." See page 17 if you are curious. 66.191.19.59 17:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Beating a dead horse - It IS 'Mac'. It WAS 'Macintosh'.

IT'S WHAT APPLE CALLS THEM.

It's Mac. It used to be Macintosh. Habits die hard, but Apple makes it pretty clear what we call these machines in 2007.

1. Product names alone prove it.
2. Pursuant to #1, the Advertising proves it.

Together, I don't see how it can be argued any other way. Mac = modern context. Macintosh = historical context.

That's why, when I did my original revision, I took care to call current models "Macs", all of which explicitly and exclusively include that name, but to retain "Macintosh" for any model that explicitly and exclusively included that name.

Is it not enough that Apple has renamed all of the desktop computers formerly called Macintoshes, "Macs"? This was a very distinct and public transition; which I remember vividly occurring when the "Power Macintosh" line became the "Power Mac", circa G3 blue/white or G4. So not only are there no more products called "Macintosh", (iMac, MacBook, Mac Mini, Mac Pro... even the OS was renamed "Mac OS". Seeing a trend here?), all promotional materials I have seen since the switch have used "Mac". I'll bet if someone looked for it, you could find a press release that is a complete corollary to "Apple Computer, Inc. is now Apple, Inc.". But even if you couldn't you've got:

1. The product names
2. Every piece of marketing material since the transition I spoke of. Seen any commercials lately? In fact, go watch them -- ALL of them -- at apple.com. In fact, see if you can find the term "Macintosh" used anywhere other than in an historical context. This was my original criteria for changing the first line in the lead, but leaving the title of the article alone. (Although a redirect FROM "Mac (computer)" isn't a bad idea).

I'll bet all it would take is a letter to Apple PR, stating, "Are you currently calling your personal computer products "Macs" or "Macintoshes"?" would solve the problem once and for all. I'd do it, but I don't want to get dragged back into this edit war. :) In fact, maybe I'll do it just to QUENCH the edit war. :)

Times change. Marketing changes. "Mac" is what it is. "Macintosh" is what it was. One statement from a current Apple employee unintentionally using "Macintosh" in a vaguely modern context does not outweigh the direction of the entire company, which I think I've made pretty clear above. -- ManfrenjenStJohn 06:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's a quick acid test

1. Go to http://store.apple.com
2. Count the number of products called "Mac" or variant thereof (hint: you can skip this step)
3. Count the number of products called "Macintosh" or variant thereof.

Wait, what's this? Firefox search can't find any instance of 'macintosh' in any form? Hm. -- ManfrenjenStJohn 07:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Try again. The search engine on Apple's page returns: "About 2428 results found for 'macintosh'." A2-computist (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

--

Oh yeah (just when you thought my snide comments were done :) -- A strong argument could be made that an Xserve is a Mac. I'm not claiming that it is, just that it could be referred to one. Here's the $64,000 question: What OS does it run??

So, one could make the simplified argument that any computer that (legally, officially, and manufactured by Apple) that runs the Mac OS is a "Mac". Again, that's just one interpretation to consider.

And if I may impose my position just a teeny bit further, I don't personally get bent out of shape when someone refers to "Macintosh" as a current technology. It's a sign of LONG TERM RESPECT and ACCEPTANCE that the term is so deeply entrenched. So while "Mac" is the proper umbrella term for all current desktop/laptop computers manufactured by one Apple, Inc., it could simply be reflected in the article that "due to historical use of the term 'Macintosh', that term is sometimes still used interchangeably to describe Mac technology."

Maybe the key phrase there is "umbrella term". Can we agree that that's what "Mac" and "Macintosh" have evolved to become?

Another quick test: look on the desktop of any Macintosh computer. By default the icon for the hard drive reads "Macintosh HD." 24.129.79.204 05:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC) --

ManfrenjenStJohn 08:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Trademarks and history

For those editors digging through SEC reports or looking for legacy references of the original trademark lurking in fine print on a website: understand that, despite the name change, Apple does not wish to lose control the original trademark. They will retain some minimal use of the "Macintosh" mark in order to protect it.

Apple moved away from the Macintosh name during the cloning years of the mid-1990s: Macintosh became Mac OS computer, and the platform became Mac OS, and later Mac. Apple completed the elimination of the Macintosh trademark from product names in 1999, when "Power Macintosh" was retired with the introduction[1] of the Power Mac G4.

It is not controversial that then, as now, the computers were more commonly referred to by users as Macs. The rebranding of the platform and the hardware brought the marketing name in line with general usage.

Mac is: the name used by the public, the official platform name, the product name. And it has been for a long time.

Mac is the name that is least likely to confuse or astonish readers, particularly newer users who don't know any of this history. Increasingly, they just know they didn't buy a "Macintosh" and have never seen a "Macintosh" in a store.

Wikipedia naming conventions seem rather clear to me on this; nonetheless, this is not my crusade to move or split this article as much as it is my entreaty to editors to properly reference Mac (e.g.: Mac OS X, Mac keyboards, Mac software, etc.) across Wikipedia, particularly when referring to the modern platform and products.

In my opinion, Macintosh remains the best term to use when referring to the original products and platform, particularly pre-1996. Even though, back then, in general usage, "Mac" was still the most frequently used term. — RVJ (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

POV in history

Bill Gates is alleged to have "stolen" technology in regards to the past profile of Mac. I am unsure of the article in its correct state, and would appear to span a few days back. Daily Rubbings 08:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

POV in history NOT True !

You gotta check out the new "Mac Os X Leapord" and I would like you to take a look at it's NEW feature, "The Time Machine" which is the basic concept of Restoring settings. what will any one have to say about that. Rkavuru 07:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Mac Viruses

I wonder, has anyone considered adding the viewpoint that more people are writing viruses for Windows because there are more targets in the Windows market?12.26.68.146 20:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The section about Virii was incorrect. Leap.A is a worm (not a virus). The idea that that a computer platform has more virii because of its market share is certainly feasible but not credible. given a 90% Windows market share and Macs with a 5% marketshare, it would be logical that Macs would have 4% of the number of Windows malware. Even presupposing that MOST malware writers write for Windows because of its market share, the extreme difference (370,000 vs 2) is plenty of evidence that there is much more preventing malware than the difference in market share. Macintosh market share has more than doubled this year. Has the malware doubled? Even increased?Macrhino 18:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Much ado about (almost) nothing

Sorry to add a whole section...

Just wanted to describe the one word change I made. In the memory section, regarding upgrading: All *current* Macs have useraccessible memory...

I personally can attest that the older macs did not provide user access to memory hardware.

This section of the discussion page can be deleted...I just didn't want my edit to the main page to be viewed as vandalism or anything. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.155.164 (talk) 02:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mac OS X Leopard free.png

Image:Mac OS X Leopard free.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No Music?

I was hoping to find what kind of music the 80s-era Macs could create, but it does not list a sound chip. Does it not include a sound chip? - Theaveng 11:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

80s-era Macs didn't have a 'sound chip'. They did have a stereo DAC, which at most had hardware mixing. In any case, old Macs can produce music in similar quality to Amigas and stereo SoundBlasters (ignoring the SB's FM synth). Later Macs have CD quality audio.  :--Anss123 15:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

And what was the part number (or name) for the 80s-era Macintosh's D-to-A converter? - Theaveng 17:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That depends on the Mac model. The Mac Pluss had stereo audio at 22Khz and a tone generator, the Mac II had stereo at 22KHz or 44Khz, the SE (and other cheap models) only had mono. Seems like the original Mac from 1984 had an FM chip. All models with DACs has 4 hardware channels, even the mono versions, that means the Macs can play up to four sounds simultaneously without retorting to software mixing.

Can’t help you with part numbers, but it’s very likely to be custom chips made by/for Apple.

--Anss123 21:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If they had DACs and 4 channels, then they sound comparable to the 4-channel Paula chip used in Commodore Amiga, except Paula was not just a DAC. It was also a PCM generator, so it could create its own sounds. Could 1985-86-era Macs generate self-made music? - Theaveng 16:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Paula has DMA access to chip memory and a 6-Bit volume control. This means that Paula was superior to the Mac audio chip as long as you had no need for more than two megabytes of memory. There was software for the Amiga that could cheat around the 2MB limit, but I'm not sure how well they worked. As for PCM, the DAC in the Mac could be fed 8-Bit PCM encoded data, 16-Bit in later models, and could play back anything Paula could play given that you didn't take advantage of Paula's volume control (there was indeed software for the Amiga that did that, but it ate CPU time IIRC).

Also note that Paula can be tweaked to run at 58 KHz, or thereabout, which is a bit better than the 44 KHz of the Mac II. But this required use of a double screen mode (IIRC) so it normally capped to 28 KHz (witch is still better than the 22KHz of the Mac Pluss)

All in all, Paula was the better chip for games and MOD software thanks to DMA and Volume control. Paula also had a low pass filter that could be turned off and on depending on your needs. The Amiga's power light was in fact wired to show when the filter was off or on.

This, of course, ignores important details such as S/N ratio on the analog parts. The Mac probably used higher quality components, and should have had cleaner sound as a result. Also, Paula's implementation of Stereo did not include panning, this means that if you wanted to playback sound on both speakers at the same time you had to use two of the four audio channels. Games and MOD tunes therefore tended to just throw sound effects out wily nilly, which is why Amiga emulators and later MOD players by default mix the channels together to make the listening experience more pleasant. The Mac probably had an advantage here, but I simply don't know. Using stereo headphones with the Amiga was annoying to the n-th degree in any case.

So could 1985-86-era Macs generate self-made music? If you mean PCM then I will have to say no to the 1984 Mac, and yes to the 1986 Mac Pluss. I'm not sure about models in between.

--Anss123 21:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.  :-) - Theaveng 11:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The original 68000-based Macintosh systems were fairly limited, if not non-existent, in terms of music synthesis. This could also be said of PowerPC-based Macintoshes of the 90's. You had a 4-voice DAC, that was it. The early monochrome machines (e.g. Macintosh Plus) had monaural audio, 8-bit sound resolution at 22 kHz per channel, and while the newer machines could do 16-bit at 44 kHz in stereo, it still didn't do anything to allow for music synthesis. That was always a pet peeve of mine, how computers like the Amiga or even Commodore 64 could run circles around the Mac for creating music for so many years.

The Apple IIGS from 1986, part of the Apple II line, was quite a different story. It had an Ensoniq 5503 DOC chip with 64K of dedicated sound RAM built-in to every machine. It was a 32 voice wavetable music synthesis chip that could do remarkable music. As it stood, it was the most powerful computer on the market for music synthesis from 1986 up until the early 90's--it surpassed not only the Macintosh, but the Amiga as well. Apple's MIDIsynth toolset did a fair job at showing off what could be done with the chip (at least the early demos Apple showed; later stuff not so much so), as did some of the European groups of the early 90's. --Apple2gs (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the political maundering about?

Steve Jobs speculates that “maybe a little less” than half of Apple’s customers are Republicans, “maybe more Dell than ours.”[29] This perception may or may not be accurate—several prominent conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh, are Mac users

This might make sense to an American, but if Wikipedia is to shed it's Americo-centricity and become a global resource, this sort of incomprehensible babble needs to be either excised, or cast in some way that makes it's relevance clear.
This claim may make it clear to an American that the Dell Corporation is owned by the Democrat Party, meaning that Dell only employs baby-eating concentration camp guards (while by contrast Steve Jobs is a card-carrying member of the Communist party, and will give birth to Putin's new clone in 5 months time). But working out that picture from the information in the article alone probably isn't possible.
Or maybe this tidbit of information just isn't relevant to Mac(-intosh) computers.

Macs are easier to use? My arse they are - they're far more difficult to get working than anything else I've ever worked with. I'm actually having to join a MUG to get this damned thing to work, which I never had to do with DOS machines, Windows boxes, Linux boxes, or the PDP I used to have. Horrid thing (though pretty). A Karley (talk) 03:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you made me chuckle :) And you're right, as a European I don't see the relevance of the statement. But, keep in mind that 70% of wikipedians (or thereabout) are from the US of A so Americo-centricity is not necessarily the wrong way to go about it.--Anss123 (talk) 04:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Frankly I think that section needs to be trimmed considerably, and the rest of it referenced really well.--HereToHelp 22:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This section did strike me as a bit odd and as A Karley suggests, a little "smug". GM Pink Elephant (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Effects on the technology industry

What about the inclusion of a webcam in laptop computers? I think the powerbooks were the first to have this (now nearly common) feature? 194.248.249.199 (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I recall seeing it in VAIOs from Sony and some other laptops for a couple years before the MacBook Pros brought integrated webcams to Mac laptops. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 16:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

wow i didnt get any of that but hey!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.12.66 (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't speed mentioned?

Why isn't there a chart or something listing the speed of the different Macintosh models that have come out over the years, and their prices, compared to what IBM compatibles had? I think that would be a great thing to add. That is relevant as to why people began switching over to the IBM, and they loosing market share, an important part of the product's history. Dream Focus (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it is impracticable. Different users use different software which perform differently, depending on CPU, memory, hard drive, etc. It's all but impossible to keep a NPV and finding sources that state why users switch one way or the other is more difficult still. Just stating that user choose IBMs because they are better value is WP:OR, less you have a source.--Anss123 (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"first expandable Macintosh."

"The Macintosh II, the first expandable Macintosh."

The II and the SE were both introduced on the same day. The SE had an expansion slot, expandable memory (as did the Plus), and room for an internal hard disk. Thus, the caption under the Mac II picture is misleading. I'm changing it to "one of the first". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oregonerik (talk • contribs) 22:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ref formatting

I have made them consistent. Some notes to keep it that way:

• I have used the 2008-01-30 format for every date. I don't actually prefer this one, but most of them were done that way so it was easiest.
• I have used Apple inc. for all Apple publications. Apple and other companies should not be used in the author field of the template.
• Someone should try to remove the Ken Polsson refs. I don't think they meet policy.

Marskell (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Effects on the technology industry 2

Criticized at WP:FAR as not factually accurate. Not strictly necessary to the article but might be readded if scrutinized and better sourced. Marskell (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Over the years, the Macintosh has introduced new ideas and technologies, both hardware and software, to the personal computer market. Many such innovations were implemented into non-Macintosh computers by other companies, causing the technology industry to quickly adopt these new features. Some of these were eventually dropped as they became outmoded, but others are still in widespread use.

The Macintosh 128K was the first successful commercial implementation of a computer based on the "graphical-user-interface" and mouse concepts developed by Xerox PARC. Mac OS's original mouse commands, like double-clicking and drag-and-drop, are still in use in most operating systems. It included software that allowed for now-standard features including “what you see is what you get” word processing, and long file names that permitted whitespace and did not require a file extension. The 128K had speakers and an output jack, and supported printers, and modems. Criticized at FAR as possibly not factually accurate. Not strictly necessary, but might be readded if scrutinized and better sourced. Marskell (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The Macintosh Plus successfully introduced the SCSI interface in 1986. The Macintosh IIsi and the Macintosh LC introduced standard audio in and out ports in 1990. The Macintosh was able to support multiple monitors as far back as 1988, a full ten years before Windows 98 supported dual monitors. The Macintosh was also the first personal computer to have virtual memory in 1988 using software literally called Virtual, a Connectix product. In 1998, the iMac G3 abolished all then-standard connections in favor of Universal Serial Bus, now seen on almost all personal computers. A later revision also used FireWire, a high-speed data transfer bus now popular in media-editing computers and digital video cameras. The iMac also had no floppy disk drive, causing many third parties to market external drives.

Apple has also contributed to the field of mobile computing. The PowerBook 100, 140, and 170 set the ergonomic standard for the placement of the keyboard in 1991 by moving the keyboard behind a palm rest area, rather than right at the bottom edge of the laptop. The PowerBook 100 series also featured the first built-in pointing device on a laptop: a trackball. The PowerBook Duo also introduced the idea of a dock/port replicator in 1992. One of the most significant features pioneered by the Macintosh PowerBook lineup was the first true touchpad as a pointing device on the PowerBook 500 in 1994; today, most laptops rely on it as their pointing device. More recently, the PowerBook G4 became the first full-size laptop computer to feature a widescreen display, and in 2003 the first laptop with a 17-inch (430 mm) display, and in 2004 it became the first laptop to provide dual-link DVI. The Wi-Fi Alliance's wireless networking standard IEEE 802.11b was implemented in the Macintosh portable lines in 1999; Apple also began production of their AirPort base stations at that time.

I'd like to see certain aspects of this text restored, either here or in a related article. Not sure where, though - but I will try to look over the various articles and post a suggestion back here, if that's OK. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Software section

I nuked this text in the Software section:

Originally, the hardware architecture was so closely tied to Mac OS that it was impossible to boot an alternative operating system. The most common workaround, used even by Apple for A/UX, was to boot into Mac OS and then to give control to a boot loader program. This technique is not necessary on Open Firmware-based PCI Macs, though it was formerly used for convenience on many Old World ROM systems due to bugs in the firmware implementation. Now, Mac hardware boots directly from Open Firmware or EFI.

The first sentence is simply wrong. In fact, it is contradicted by the second sentence. PowerPC Macs, even prior to the advent of OpenFirmware, supported some forms of Linux and *BSD and BeOS. Even some of the older (generally MMU-equipped) 680x0 Macs could run one or two alternative operating systems, though they weren't widely used. As for the rest of it, what does this have to do with software? If someone would like to improve this text and use it elsewhere (or make a persuasive argument for including it in the Software section), be my guest. --KenshinWithNoise 03:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

MiB and KiB v.s. MB and KB

I note that this article uses “MB” to denote megabyte as in “8 MB of RAM”. Other articles on Wikipedia use “MiB” instead of “MB”. For interested authors, debate and a vote is ongoing on Talk:MOSNUM regarding a proposal that would deprecate the use of computer terms like “kibibyte” (symbol “KiB”), “mebibyte” (symbol “MiB”), and kibibit (symbol “Kib”). It would no longer be permissible to use terminology like a “a SODIMM card with a capacity of two gibibytes (2 GiB) first became available…” and instead, the terminology currently used by manufacturers of computer equipment and general-circulation computer magazines (“two gigabytes, or 2 GB”) would be used. Voting on the proposal is ongoing here. Greg L (my talk) 01:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)