Talk:Macintosh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Macintosh article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Featured article star Macintosh is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 10, 2006.
Peer review This Engtech article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
This article is a former Macintosh collaboration. It was in the spotlight from December 4, 2005 to December 28, 2005. The Collaboration is managed by WikiProject Macintosh, an attempt to improve, grow, and standardize Wikipedia's articles related to Apple Inc. and the Macintosh.
Archive
Archives
  1. Jun 2004
  2. Sept 2004 - Feb 2006
  3. Feb 2006
  4. Feb 2006 - Oct 2006


Contents

[edit] Spyware

"The design of the Macintosh operating system and the vigilance of Macintosh users[29] has contributed to the near-absence of the types of malware and spyware that plague Microsoft Windows users."

The preceding is not accurate. Malware/viruses are written for the masses. Whoever has the largest market share will have the most malware. --DJBryson 06:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

"Whoever has the largest market share will have the most malware." Prove this and provide accurate statistics to back it up. Now having said that I think OS X would have SOME spyware etc if it had XP's marketshare. But nowhere near the amount XP has now. A lot of the reason XP has the spyware it does isn't because it's popularity, but how it comes setup by default. And that is on the fault of MS. MS wants people to believe that running virus scanners and malware and spyware scanners on a CONSUMER device is normal behavioral practice. IT IS NOT. MS is trying to fix things now with Vista by using the permission system like OS X and other *NIX oss do. This should help a lot with the virus and spyware issues. 66.76.193.162 17:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I always thought that it was because no-one made them, since they arn't used much by buisnesses and suchlike. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.72.50.20 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC).

Come again? Hippo X 15:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
One presumes 70.72.50.20 meant that the main reason there isn't as much malware (a term that I think includes spyware) for the Mac as for Windows is that, given that fewer personal computers run Mac OS than run Windows, releasing malware for Windows lets you get your malware on a much larger number of machines. If the Mac's market share grows, it could become a more popular platform for developers, which is, in general, a Good Thing, but it's not such a Good Thing when the developers are developing the type of software you really don't want running on your computer. Guy Harris 20:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Some claim that Unix is fundamentally more secure than the design of Windows so even if Mac OS X got huge market share it would never host as many viruses as Windows. For one article, read here
--Jason C.K. 03:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
"Whoever has the largest market share will have the most malware." This contention is easily refuted. Not only does Mac OS X have *zero* malware in the face of it's growing marketshare, there exists an example outside of the Mac platform that does an even better job of dispelling this myth: The Apache web server and it's at times three to one dominance over Microsoft solutions for web serving. When at 60%, the Apache web server had, for all intents and purposes, no worms, trojans or remote exploitations to speak of. This in comparison to the daily assaults that Windows users faced (and still face) on all versions of Microsoft's operating system. If indeed market share had anything to do with it, Apache's 50% plus market share would have guaranteed attacks and exploits of all shapes and sizes. It did not, and does not have such problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.38.168 (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Unix may be more secure, but it would have plenty of viruses if it had the market share that Windows systems have. Apache may have the majority of web servers, but people don't write viruses for web servers most of the time. Most people write malware for PC's, and guess who has the majority of the PC market? Microsoft Windows. The reason that Windows servers have virus issues is that the viruses written for the PC version of Windows work on Windows server OS's. I have a friend who was dealing with virus issues on his Windows based server. He found out the server got the virus form a Windows based PC.

On another note, when a Mac gets a virus (yes they are rare, but there are viruses for Macs) they are totaly screwed. I have seen a computer lab full of Macs that where new at the time(50 or more) go down for a week from a small piece of malware. The virus spread like wild fire. Now on the other hand I've seen a whole network of PC's get exposed to a virus (it was much more robust, and there were 250 PCs) and only three went down. Thet were back up by the end of the day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.164.238.17 (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MacBook Pro Error

The caption for the "MacBook Pro" states "The MacBook Pro is the first Macintosh notebook to use an Intel processor. It was released at Macworld 2006." The first two notebooks had about 80% Intels and on the next two it was an option. Let alone that many people, like those at Pixar changed to Intels on the newer models. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.62.181.199 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

What do you mean by "had about 80% Intels"? 100% of the MacBook Pros had Intel processors (unless you're implying Apple snuck AMD processors into some of them :-)); the Apple aluminum notebooks with PowerPC processors in them were called PowerBooks, not MacBooks. Guy Harris 20:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Four Sections

The First Four Sections had been removed. I reverted this change. Camhusmj38 01:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article status

With this being a featured article I cringe at reading grammar like this: "Apple didn't use Pentium 4 or Pentium D CPUs because of there power consumption and heating. Also, it didn't use AMD CPUs because Intel's roadmap in 2005, its large factories and because it was capable to offer a complete platform (as AMD can offer after buying ATI)." (BTW, I removed this)

There are also blatant POV issues like: "The design of the Macintosh operating system and the vigilance of Macintosh users[29] has contributed to the near-absence of the types of malware and spyware that plague Microsoft Windows users." (This fact is clearly disputed, IOW POV - The counter argument being marked share and such, and there is no proof that Mac users are any more vigilant than anyone else.)

This is a featured article people; try to not make Wikipedia look bad :-) --Anss123 16:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to fix it. That's the great thin about Wikipedia.--HereToHelp 00:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
My point is not that it needs to be fixed, but that it needs to be fixed for this to remain a featured article. POV and poor grammar is not the stuff most FAs on this site is made of.--Anss123 01:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
If you feel that the article really doesn't live up to current FA standards, you can list it at WP:FAR. If it only requires minor fixes, however, it's better to just make them yourself and move on. -- mattb @ 2006-12-19T01:46Z
I never said that I'm not willing to make those changes, but with this article having featured status I thought to give people a chance to argue down my points. There is also the problem that I know I’m a biased editor, biased away from the Mac, and that will color my perception of what is POV and original research (there seem to be a bit of that too). I would therefore prefer if someone agreed to my assessment that this article has problems.--Anss123 02:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree - even Mac users think that bad grammar is a bad thing. I've cut the reference to "the vigilance of Macintosh users" too. The marketshare counterargument is rather weak, because it doesn't explain why there is no surreptitiously-installed malware for the Mac, but add it if you feel the article needs some balance (though I think that'd just be apparent balance, and would start an edit war, so is best avoided...) Thomas Ash 11:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Implementing a root-kit is non-trivial, quite expensive actually - so targeting the Mac is simply pointless as long as spammers gets all the bots they need from the PC marked, this is, however, irrelevant for Wikipedia. Arguing that the Mac platform is more or less affected by rootkits because of <insert reason here> falls under either original research or POV, less you find a source that a large number people agree to (because this is very much a contested issue). BTW, the whole 'rootkit' situation is overrated by the media (surprised?). The majority of BOTs are spread through social engineering (i.e. they send you an executable and ask you to execute it.) The Mac platform is no more 'safe' from these attacks, but where the Mac has an advantage is that users are by default logged in with low privileges, this means that it is much easier to get a rootkit going on Windows (assuming the user logged in with high privileges). This, of course, does not change the fact that Mac OS X is an unstable POS that crash more than Win95 IMHE :-)
--Anss123 12:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • "This fact is clearly disputed, IOW POV" If this fact is clearly disputed, please find us some appropriate, neutral sources weighing-in with the point of view that Unix and/or Mac is fundamentally engineered less-securely than Windows. "targeting the Mac is simply pointless as long as spammers gets all the bots they need from the PC" It would be major bragging rights to the writer. But it's difficult to score that win because few Mac exploits survive long (they're patched), and there are rarely any actual viruses "out in the wild" (as opposed to built in a virus-researcher's lab). MS meanwhile will try to hide that any vulnerability exists rather than fixing the bugs. There's even a known vulnerability in Vista left-over from previous versions of Windows! Read here. "Arguing that the Mac platform is more or less affected by rootkits because of <insert reason here> falls under either original research or POV, less you find a source" If it mattered to talk about rootkits in the article, it shouldn't be too hard to find a lot of material about the fundamental secure engineering of Unix. See a few links at the end of this post. "where the Mac has an advantage is that users are by default logged in with low privileges" And so you've just countered your own point, a Mac is safer from social engineering. What's more, even if you are logged-in with high-privs, unlike in Windows where when some process wants to affect your system it'll just say "Do you want to do this <insert incomprehensible 'info'>" and you can just click "ok", on a Mac it will tell you what application is requesting what privilege and require an admin username & password. Also, unlike long-time MS practice of having a freshly-installed OS default-configured with the system pretty wide-open, OS X does, for one, ship with root disabled by default, and in general locked-down. And since the average user has no interest in Unix, the command line, or root accounts, they never enable it and so it isn't available on most running Macs. Read more here and here.
--Jason C.K. 05:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
You should try to space out your replies. A large block of text is difficult to read.
Anyway, I never stated that the Unix platform is less secure than anything. You must have confused my rootkit argument, and re-reading it now I can see why. What I meant was arguments like "the mac platform is less affected by rootkits because Mac users are smarter than windows users, or because there are less Macs then Windows machines, etc...."
You're argument about how Macs are patched and how there's security vulnerabilities in Windows Vista confuse me. Both were known facts before Vista was released, and there's numerous vulnerabilities waiting to be discovered in both operation systems. Are you arguing that MS don't patch known security vulnerabilities? Then you might have something, but I know for a fact that pre-SP2 machines still get patches every now and then (My P133 laptop can't take Win XP-SP2 for some reason).
Note that the admin account on Windows XP is not equivalent with the root account on Mac OS X, but we're getting of topic here. I've not read the entire Macintosh article, but last time I glanced on it I saw POV, unsourced statements and grammar issues. I'm not sure if this still is the case, but for a featured article that is not acceptable. A featured article is suppose to represent the best Wikipedia has to offer, keep that in mind every time you press the edit button on this article.
--Anss123 13:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
On that note, also a bit misleading to say Windows users are plagued by them - obviously it's a problem for many, but many such as myself have never had a problem with them. Maybe change it to "many", rather than implying all? Mdwh 11:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
and Mac fan boys keep deleting all thing derogatory (but true) said about Macs that are true, if you compare the criticism section, Macs' consists of about 3 paragraphs. Windows has an entire long article about spyware, viruses, etc.
You could at least provide an example of what "true" derogatory facts have been deleted. And the article about Windows flaws WRT viruses? That would be because the entire history of spyware, malware, trojans and viruses that affect users to this very day requires a PC running Microsoft Windows OS with Intenet Explorer and Outlook installed. That's it. No other platform in the history of computing has had the problems that the Microsoft OS has had and still has. And it is a direct result of Microsoft's poor or non-existent security practices. Active X and related technologies that allow applications to automatically and without oversight execute system level code are the reason that Windows and it's users are so afflicted with over 150000 threats of various kinds. Market share may make Windows the desired target but market share did not create the horrific security practices such as system level unsupervised scripting, open ports and every-body-runs-as-admin attitude. In light of the fact that these problems are, for all intents and purposes, non-existent on ANY other platform, never mind the Macintosh, whining about the fact that Microsoft's legacy includes spyware, trajons and whatnot is just whining. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.61.241 (talk) 16:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Macintosh PC???

As Apple's website actually speaks of Macs and compares them to PCs, are Macs PCs? If they are, they are--but I can use a server with two Intel quad-core cpus in it and use it for personal use, so is that a PC too? Only saying because it seems Apple is marketing against PCs and for Macintoshes--and PC originated from IBM PC, making Apple different. Any thoughts? Bourgeoisdude 16:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Macs are certainly PCs. Apple marketing and users just like to avoid using that term due to the general association of "PC" with "IBM PC compatible". -- mattb @ 2007-01-18T17:00Z
I.e., a Macintosh is a Personal Computer ("a microcomputer whose price, size, and capabilities make it suitable for personal usage"), even if it's not an IBM PC compatible. Guy Harris 18:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archives updated

I've archived old discussions to a new archive page. Also, I've moved all the archives, as they were linked under Talk:Apple Macintosh instead of here. The archives now have a navigation template, making it easier to read from one page to the next. Hope folks find this helpful. -- Kesh 20:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Much too Biased

This article is very biased. It constantly talks about how great the macintosh is/was and how it is so surprising Mac's have not taken over the world. One example in particular is the article states as a fact that MS Windows' UI was written to be a copy of MacOS'. But hidden later in the article it says that Apple sued microsoft over this and lost. Clearly the first statement is subjective and the second is objective. But the first one is strongly supported in the article. Where the second statement is downplayed and even hinted that Bil Gates used dirty tactics to stop Apple's legal appeal. Now I am not a huge fan of MS or Apple but reading this article was painful because of the slant. The article should be written much more factually. All the subjectiveness of the author should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Goat (talk • contribs) 21:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

There is no "author" whose subjectiveness can be removed. Look at the history of this article and convince me that there is an author who can be credited with it.
I didn't mean that there was one person who was biased. By "author" I meant the collective group of people who contributed to the article.The Goat 20:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I.e., this is a Wiki; if you don't like the article, be bold and change it. Guy Harris 08:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I might do just that. However I am not an "expert" on the subject. Second I wanted to bring the problem to the attention of the community so that the reason behind any changes would be understood.The Goat 20:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I suspect many of the people to whose contributions you're objecting aren't "experts", either; don't let that keep you from contributing.
Also, when you make a change, put the reason behind the change in the edit summary. Guy Harris 20:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Gotta agree with you on that one. It would be more neutral to state that Apple believed Microsoft copied the UI, which led to the lawsuit. -- Kesh 23:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • If something doesn't sound right to you, either re-word it to be more neutral & accurate ("believed", "alledged", etc), AND you might also want to flag it if it's a claim that ought to be substantiated, put a {{fact}} or {{verify source}} or some other tag on it in the article text. Guidelines here.
--Jason C.K. 06:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me clear this one up for you guys. The first windowed operating system was created by XEROX, not APPLE. So saying Windows stole the idea from Apple is not accurate. The truth is out there. --DJBryson 06:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean "Stanford University." See: NLS. Xerox "stole" the idea from Stanford, just as Apple "stole" the idea from Xerox, and Microsoft "stole" the idea from Apple. 68.218.39.60 03:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The fact is that it was Apple that took the commercial risk of bringing the GUI to consumer computers and showed it could work. And it wasn't just Apple that believed that Microsoft copied the Macintosh GUI: this is still a very widespread perception amongst the digerati (at least those old enough, or historically-inclined enough, to be aware of the issue). AussieBoy 04:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Apple Actually didn't STEAL anything from PARC. It was payed well for ideas that Apple itself was already working on. The PARC OS really didn't work or behave like Apple's OS. However, Windows's OS did act like Apple's OS.

Now who copied who? 66.76.193.162 17:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"This article is very biased. It constantly talks about how great the macintosh is/was" I don't think that word (biased) means what you think it means. The simple fact is that almost every single aspect of the modern PC was either pioneered or improved on the Macintosh platform. The mouse, the GUI, CDROM and built in networking, colour graphics, sound... on top of the fact that the article is, oddly enough, all about Apple and the Macintosh. Microsoft clearly and consciously took as much of the look and feel of Apple's GUI and incorporated into Windows because Apple was ruling the computing world with it's GUI design. The idea that Microsoft developed the Windows GUI in a vacuum is not credible, and Microsoft's underhanded tactics are a matter of public record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.38.168 (talk) 05:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If you don't think this article is biased you have to be practicaly drowning in the Koolaid. This article is biased. Though when something, such as Macs, have a huge cult-like fan base it will be very hard not to make an biased article. The problem is that many times I have tried to edit the article to remove biase and my changes have been reverted. This is the one thing about Wikipedia that I hate. The admins are often not able to over ocme thier biased views to produce an unbiased Wikipedia article.

Please point out the relevant reverted edits so that we can review them. Thanks.--Anss123 16:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rosetta Inacuracy

"Many analysts have stated that certain high-profile programs, such as those from Adobe Systems, should not be used under Rosetta until native versions are released."

This is first unnecessary information. Information such as this should be stated on the Rosetta & OS X pages rather than the Macintosh page. Second this is incorrect information with a citation that states nothing even close to what the sentence states. Very few analysts have said that they should not be used under Rosetta, and the supplied citation says nothing about any analyst either. It just gives a list of products that haven't been released as universal applications. Creative professionals have stated that Photoshop and other graphics programs would run slower through Rosetta. The people stating not to do so are people hoping for a miracle that Apple has defied the laws of computing and found a way to translate from one processor architecture to another without a performance dip. Rosetta was designed closely with Adobe to work near-flawless with their applications. The first public test of Rosetta was done with Adobe Photoshop. I've used it on an almost daily basis on my Intel Mac without any problems. Khadgar
  • Khadgar is right...the reference has nothing to do with the claim. Was a mistake made? Or did someone make a claim and add a random reference so it would look sourced? Anyway, I'll delete the irrelevant reference, stick in a "fact" tag, and someone will either have to substantiate that claim or we'll delete that claim in a week or so.
--Jason C.K. 06:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questionable statement about marketing

"Macintosh systems are mainly targeted at the home, education, and creative professional markets." Perhaps most sales are in these markets (though some hard data would be nice), but is it really certain that they are "targeted" at these markets? Numberp 02:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that statement is clearly incomplete. Since the switch to Unix, Apple has also done some marketing targeting the scientific computing marketplace with two-page spreads in magazines such as New Scientist where they stressed the ease of moving existing scientific codes from big Unix servers to your Mac laptop. They also advertised specifically using the success off the University of Virginia (?) supercomputer built out of PowerMacs.
Atlant 14:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I remember the early days of the Mac and how Apple was quite aggressive in placing them in universities and pursuing the academic market before other computer hardware and software manufacturers followed suit. During my freshman year in college, the engineering college at my university installed a lab filled with dozens of Lisas, which were quickly converted to Mac XLs when the Lisa failed to pan out. These early Macs were great not so much for use in engineering work (all they had on them were MacWrite, MacDraw, MacPaint, etc.) but for the fact that I no longer needed a typewriter. I could actually write a paper for the first time, save it, edit it as often as I wanted to without running out of correction fluid and have it look professional when printed on a LaserWriter, far better and easier than similar work done on PCs at the time, no small feat in 1984! Even today, most (liberal arts) academics I know are Mac users, and the academic community gets good deals on them. If anyone finds documentation of Apple's focus on the academic market and its impact on the subsequent success of the Mac, please by all means include it! SpanishCastleMagic 02:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Neither Dell nor HP/Compaq are OEMs. Like Appple, they sub-contract out to Chinese companies like Asus. Frequently, both Dell and MacBook machines roll off the same assembly lines. The section on manufacturing here is a little naive.

[edit] Superdrive

This sentence has long confused me: "The Power Macintosh G4 with its SuperDrive introduced the first relatively affordable DVD-R drive in 2001" - so presumably with the "relatively affordable" qualifier, this wasn't the first computer to come with DVD-R as standard, in which case, I'm wondering in what sense this is innovative? Was there some dramatic breakthrough in price thanks to some innovation by Apple, or does this just mean cheaper than before? In what way did the Superdrive effect the computer industry?

There's now a reference for it [1] but that just confirms that it existed, it doesn't explain why it's notable, or provide a reference for an effect on the rest of the computer industry.

Thanks for any explanation. Mdwh 03:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

No comments, so I'm deleting. Sure the Superdrive existed, but no evidence why it was more affordable, or that it was innovative or had an effect on the rest of the computer industry (which is what this section is about). Mdwh 19:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with the deletion. After all the 2001 SuperDrive isn't the first SuperDrive - the Mac drives that were able to read both Mac-formatted and PC-formatted disks in the mid-90s were also called a "SuperDrive" and at the time were innovative too. Jpp42 06:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual memory

First computer with virtual memory? That's disputed by the Wikipedia article for virtual memory. Mdwh 03:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Heck i think even the Altair 8800 had some virtual memory.

The article says "first personal computer to have virtual memory", not "first computer". A claim that the Mac was the first computer to have virtual memory would, of course, be complete rubbish. Guy Harris 04:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, but it's highly misleading, and not the way I read it. At the least, it would be better to specifically state that other computers had virtual memory earlier to ensure that the reader is not misled, and that the Mac was the first ... something. "Personal computer" is a very vague classification, what definition is being used here? Also a reference that this influenced other OSs to have virtual memory would be useful - I'd have thought that introduction of virtual memory had more to do with the availibility of the necessary hardware, than a 3rd party product for the Mac. Mdwh 05:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
How is it misleading, and how could one read "first personal computer" as meaning "first computer" (absent a glitch causing the word "personal" to disappear)?
As for the definition, the definition in the Wikipedia page for personal computer might work here. Guy Harris 10:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
It's certainly not misleading, this is just Mdwh who needs to read sentences more carefully. — Wackymacs 10:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I know what the common usage is, but personal computer is still not a strict well-defined category. At the least, Windows on PCs had virtual memory since 1990, so the bit about "then two years later implemented into System 7 by Apple" isn't part of the first, the first was with Connectix's product. I shall fix this. Mdwh 19:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peripherals?

Should there be an article for Mac peripherals (modems, printers, tape drives, storage, et. al.)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.19.42 (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Under "Storage" the statement is made: "All Macs have one optical drive. The Mac Pro has room for either one or two." Excuse me? My Mac 128 didn't. Perhaps a little qualification is in order? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.188.244 (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "The" Macintosh

Why is does the article begin with "The" Macintosh? The article for iPod doesn't and it should be a similar situation here...


Dolbinau 11:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


Rkavuru 07:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.[1] 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.[2] 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.[3]

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. --Ckatzchatspy 22:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] History split

User:Kozuch suggested that the history section be split, with the detail added to a daughter article. I lean against this idea because I don't think that it can be done very well. There's the detailed text present in the article, and some very summarized information in the lead, but I have yet to really see anything in between. The section is long, yes, but what exactly can we cut? There's not even a detailed summary at the head of section to expand. If someone can produce a draft to convince me otherwise, great, but currently I don't see this as a viable option. Please leave the article relatively unmodified until we can work out consensus (or show that everyone disagrees with me).--HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I see a new page History of Macintosh was created. But why was the content copied and not moved??? Placing merge tag to resolve duplication of content. It is also needed to write an intro for the other article which could be possibly used as a content for this section here.--Kozuch (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Macintosh/Mac name

The first line: "Macintosh, or for newer models, Mac…" What "newer models"? We were calling it "Mac" back around the second model, the 512K "Fat Mac". Then the "Mac Plus", "Mac II", "Mac LC", etc. etc. Now, I understand we're only supposed to call them by the single name "Mac", which isn't an abbreviation for anything, but surely there's a better way to phrase this opening remark… --Makaristos (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The colloquial abbreviation we used in the 1980s was "Mac", yes, but the official names of the products were Macintosh 512K, Macintosh Plus, Macintosh II, Macintosh LC, and so on. The first Apple computers to be officially called "Mac" instead of "Macintosh" were the iMac and Power Mac G4, released in 1998 and 1999, respectively. -/- Warren 05:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
That's ten years ago. How "new" are "newer models"? --Makaristos (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It's documented in the article. Please read it. -/- Warren 08:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I know it's the internet, but the snark is totally uncalled for; calm down. What I am referring to is not documented in the article; the earliest Mac(intosh) models are referred to as "Mac", as in this passage: "Bud Tribble, a Macintosh programmer, was interested in running the Lisa’s graphical programs on the Macintosh, and asked Smith whether he could incorporate the Lisa’s Motorola 68000 microprocessor into the Mac while still keeping the production cost down." So, back to my original point: I'm not sure the qualifier "newer" for the models referred to by the moniker "Mac", as opposed to the fully qualified "Macintosh", is the best way to frame this point. --Makaristos (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
You can use either form form for the earlier models, but the models released from 1998 onwards, in the "neo-Jobsian" era, are (more) exclusively just Macs. If that sounds vague, that's because there is no defining line.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Named after a type of apple?

"Macintosh" has always struck me as a very odd name to pick for a range of computers. What does a PC have to do with a raincoat?

Today, twenty years later, I stumble across the fact that they appear to be named after a kind of apple, the McIntosh Red. Now that makes more sense.

Am I just slow (definite possibility), or this is something British people aren't familiar with? Perhaps this should be mentioned in the article? I can't really think of a good place to put it though. It's quite tight and dense out there (not to mention featured)... GM Pink Elephant (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Latest/Newest" Mac

Near the top of the page, the caption for a photograph of the 2008 iMac describes it as "Apple's newest Macintosh Computer". Near the bottom of the article, another caption describes the MacBook Air as "Apple's latest Mac".

Unless I'm missing some subtlety, these can't both be correct, and I would suggest that using words such as "newest" and "latest" to describe individual evolutions of electronic products in an encyclopaedia article is a bad idea because such descriptions will remain true for a few months at most. Eggybacon (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)