Jump to content

Talk:MacBook Pro/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:MacBook Pro/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 21:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Criterion

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    I am unable to understand the model numbers.
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
    17.1 of the MoS
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    Reference 24 & 25 are not reliable. Emails need to be removed.
    B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
    Major Sections of unsourced paragraphs.
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Images are good to go, could use another image though.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Needs some more work before I can pass it.


Comments

Please do not change the status of the criterion; the reviewer will change them himself as needed.

Thanks for reviewing! I've got a few comments right off the bat. The criterion they relate to are bolded so you can see them better:

Sorry about not providing details on why, I meant to, just somehow forgot. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 01:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Apple refs removed

Per the above GA review, I'm removing all possible Apple Inc. references, as they are primary sources. I'm only removing them if there is another third party source already in place next to it; this renders to Apple reference redundant and therefore unneeded. I'm depositing the diffs here for possible future use:

Airplaneman ✈ 20:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Question

Moved from Talk:MacBook Pro/GA3 Airplaneman ✈ 20:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The new 15' and 17' Macbook Pros are listed as having Intel Direct Media Interface for their FSB - shouldn't this be Intel Quick Path? Squater (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Price

how could you not mention the price —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.45.4 (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Because the U.S. in the not the only place these computers are sold. If you include the U.S., you then invite people to include other countries. Also prices change all the time and there are separate variants and models to do this for, so including them all would be very difficult. Lastly, we are not a buyer's guide. If you want price, go to Apple.com. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

cheers blood —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.45.4 (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I have recently attempted and failed to use Wikipedia to look up the original MSRP price for some older apple technology (iBook - iPod) and including the initial MSRP price would be both useful and encyclopaedic. I understand not wanting to offend any country by not listing pricing in their currency, but for a US based company to not list the price of a widely purchased consumer good seems short sighted. Moreso since Apple has a history of maintaing a much more uniform as well as a premium sales price over the lifetime of a specific model as compared to other companies selling consumer technology. The initial cost of new hardware is as important as all the technical specifications that are so thoroughly documented especially as price drives the inclusion and exclusion of features as well as directly if not substantially driving consumer adoption of the product. Bmike8 (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Memory expansion of 'Late 2008' and 'Early 2009' 17" model / Harddisk size

Table currently claims, contrary to the referenced footnote 24 claim, that late 2008 17" model MacbookPro4,1 can upgrade to 8GB by way of EFI firmware upgrade. This model is excluded in OWC Grant's article about the upgrade, which applies to MacbookPro5,1. [1] I have submitted an edit to remove this error, which cost me postage to return the hopeless memory upgrade to its seller. ydhirsch 22:20, 07 July 2014 UTC.

In the table it states "2.66 GHz and 2.93 GHz models expandable to 8 GB but only 6 GB addressable".

This is not correct, the 'Early 2009' 17" MBP is able to use the full 8 GB.

Additionally, it should be mentioned that the Unibody enclosure allows usage of half-inch height harddisk drives, a feature that virtually no other notebook model on the market has, thus enabling users to install 1 TB harddisk drives, which currently (as of October 2010) are only available in half-inch (12.5mm) height. 87.139.51.245 (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the RAM error, it has been addressed now. Concerning the 12.5 mm disk drives, the only sources that I could find to support this are forums, which are not reliable sources. I am not doubting the claim, but we need a reliable source to verify it. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Grant; Chris S. (March 3, 2011). ""Secret" Firmware lets Late ’08 MacBooks use 8GB.". OWC. Retrieved February 16, 2012.

WTF is with the use of the word "discrete" to describe early models?

This word doesn't really make any sense to me. I never heard of "discrete Macbooks" before - this page is a top hit when you Google for the term and some of the others are clearly coping this text for SEO or other purposes. So it's not clear to me that if Apple themselves has ever used the term. Please slap me if I'm wildly wrong, but it kinda seems to me just like some editor has tried to find a word to differentiate the early models from the current unibody ones and this is what he came up with. Can't we just do a global search and replace on the page and change it to "early model"?--Stroller (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I've suspected the same thing as well, but I found the edit in question, and it is apparently an Apple term taken from a slide presented at an Apple event.
The word "discrete" by definition means separate or independent components. Since the casing of the 2006 through to 2008 MacBook Pros is not one component (unibody), it is an entirely appropriate description. For example, the panel around the keyboard is separate to the base and sides. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but it's clearly a backnomism. No-one ever talked about "woah! the new discrete Intel MacBooks are so cool!" or "the discrete MacBooks are much more expensive than the plastic ones". It's obviously a term that was coined only after the model was discontinued - if it was ever actually used outside of Apple HQ then that was only sparsely and for a very short period. I mean, I know what the word means, and I figured that "separate components" was the reason for using it, but it still seems a very odd term, especially to repeat it a dozen times.--Stroller (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
It's a clumsy term, but "early model" is much more vague. The solution I have seen in the trade press is to just say "non-unibody" or something like that. If we're going to stick with "discrete", it would be worth pointing out in the article text where that term was taken from. — Aluvus t/c 00:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I would rather retain the current terminology. The reason why the name "discrete" was given retrospectively is due to the lack of need to disambiguate between the two models prior to the introduction of the second generation. Prior to 2008, "MacBook Pro" could only refer to one model. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
When I first encountered the term I had no idea what it was talking about. While it may have been used in a Apple slide one time, it's not a generally-accepted term and only confuses readers. Binarybits (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I came to this talk page when I too saw the word 'discrete' and wondered what the heck it means here - I work very closely with Apple computers and I've never seen the term used before in this context. Rather than using a term a dozen times in this article that's only ever been seen elsewhere in one Apple slide, let's find other ways of distinguishing the original MacBook Pro computers from the unibody models. - Brian Kendig (talk) 03:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

"Pre-unibody" is far clearer and more specific for describing the hardware that were assembled into a manufactured frame rather than machined out of a solid block of aluminum. It indicates the proper time relation as well as being shorter than "before unibody". Does anyone object to this nomenclature? Bmike8 (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

In some contexts, Apple specifies the meaning of "unibody" as to mean "unibody enclosure", so I think it would make things more clear to refer to these two basic casing designs as "original enclosure" and "unibody enclosure" or similar. "Discrete" seems like an obscure term in this context, whether being formally correct or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.228.209.234 (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

New MacBook Pro released

The article needs to be updated due to the new MacBook Pro. Also, new details of Mac OS 10.7 were released today, and these need to be adressed as well. Thank you,

--Beanygirl80 (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks like people are busy updating the page. Why does 10.7 need to be addressed in this article? Airplaneman ✈ 14:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

- I apologize, on Apple's website, they mentioned new features for 10.7, however that should have beed mentioned in 10.7's article. --Beanygirl80 (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

New MacBook Pro keyboard. Tiny change, but the keyboard has new F3 button for Mission Control. Reboot81 (talk) 09:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

first MacBook Pro 13 has removable battery

the entry in the table is not correct as the first MacBook Pro 13 has removable battery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.183.32.144 (talk) 07:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it does not. That was the aluminum unibody MacBook. Airplaneman ✈ 03:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not clear, because if you unscrew the unibody cover, you can remove the batery, on the first MacBook Pro 13. So it is removable, because you don't have to unsolder anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.183.32.144 (talk) 08:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not clear, as you can unscrew the back of the unibody, unplug the battery and remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.183.32.144 (talk) 08:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
The same could be said for the trackpad, screen and every other component as well. I don't take issue with the implied context; that is, it is not easily removable. With the original "late 2008" models, all one has to do is push a latch inwards and simply pull out the battery (5 second process). Now one has to go through the hassle of undoing the 10 screws to remove the bottom panel and then remove even more screws to actually remove the battery. And for what? Replacement batteries are not sold for the new models, except if the replacement is performed by Apple directly. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
but on newer MBP or any MBA. the battery is soldered. the world "removable" should be use to separate what can be serviced by an average do-it-yourselfer from what can't. There is no skill in removing screws, while soldering is an art that few master.
And your last line kind of confirm what I say: on the newest MBP the battery is not removable anymore (but it was on the first MacBook Pro 13). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.183.32.144 (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the iFixit.com teardown manuals - no MacBook or MacBook Pro has ever had a soldered battery connection. The consumer replaceable batteries have metal or strong plastic sheathing and the non-consumer replaceable batteries have more delicate plastic connectors. Relying exclusively on the bottom shell and unibody to protect them, they have little or no protection from a sharp device damaging the cells rendering them not friendly to a consumer due to fire hazard. Bmike8 (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

And getting to the nub of the question whether any 13" MacBook Pro had both a unibody construction and a consumer-removable battery - the answer is no.

A phillips 00 screwdriver is required to get to the first 13" MacBook Pro's internal battery for replacement.

All recent MacBook and MacBook Pro manuals can be seen at http://support.apple.com/manuals/#macbook and http://support.apple.com/manuals/#macbookpro in case I've missed something. Since the last (and only) unibody 13" MacBook transitioned to the black display bezel with a glossy LCD covering looks so similar to all other unibody MacBook Pro - it's a common misconception to think of that last MacBook model as Pro. Bmike8 (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

March 2009 silent update of high end 'Late 2008' 15" model

In March 2009, Apple silently updated the high end (i.e. 512MB of graphics RAM) 15" Macbook Pro to equal the specs of the 'Early 2009' 17" Macbook Pro: The 2.53GHz processor was replaced with a 2.66GHz processor, the 2.80GHz BTO option was replaced with a 2.93GHz BTO option, and memory expandability was increased to 8GB. The model identifier of the 2.66GHz version remained MacBookPro5,1 while the model number was changed to MC026. This update should be worked into the Table of models. Unfortunately, Apple does not document this updated model which makes it difficult to verify. It is however mentioned here: http://guides.macrumors.com/MacBook_Pro , although this table does not mention the processor model numbers. 76.191.134.183 (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and added this model into the 'Early 2009' column. The table seems to work best that way. Perhaps mentions of the 2.53GHz and 2.80GHz processors and the MB470 model number should be removed from that column as those only apply to the 'Late 2008' model. 76.191.134.183 (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I removed references to the 2.53 and 2.8 GHz models, but retained the MB470 reference as it refers to the 2.4 GHz base model. The "early 2009" column deals with the 2.4 GHz so it makes sense to leave it in. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Audio and FireWire specifications

Could somebody dig up the Audio and FireWire hardware specifications (i.e. what chips are used) for the various models of MacBook Pro? Audio-visual professionals were supposed to be part of the original audience of the MBP, they demand high-quality audio and FireWire hardware, but Apple never puts those specs on their website. For instance, the first generation Unibody MacBook Pro 15" had a crappy Realtek HD Audio codec, instead of something like a good Yamaha chip that Apple used to put in Powerbooks and very first generation Intel MBP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SwordAngel (talk • contribs) 10:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

October 2011 Update

The MacBook pro line-up was updated in October of 2011, but no one has updated that under the Updates section of Unibody. overto13 Jan 17, 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.55.190 (talk) 06:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

MacBook Pro mid and late 2007 graphics RAM

I see that the specs table says the mid and late 2007 MBP could be equipped with 512MB of graphics RAM. I'm sure that wasn't the case for the mid-2007 revision as I have one, and I can't find any source (checked Apple's specs site, Mactracker, various internet sites) confirming a 512MB option for the late 2007 revision either. Can anyone find a source that supports the claim of a MacBookPro3,1 with 512MB graphics RAM, or is it just an error and should be corrected? --Aprovera (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed as not in Apple source given. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Reverse Order of old/new models?

As the article currently reads, you don't get to any current information at all until halfway down the article in the "Unibody" section. Maybe it would make more sense to discuss the current models (which people are probably trying to get information on) up front and relegate the "discrete" section to a "model history" area later in the article? Thoughts? --Sam (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Most articles list history in chronological order. Zach Vega (talk to me) 19:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Chronological order is the better idea, but we could split it into more sections if needed!--79.69.105.94 (talk) 15:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

New section for 3rd uni-body without cdroms

Also I think the ifixit saying that there is #1 star for the evil retina model should be kept, as people use wikipedia to gausge what they and their company should buy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilee (talk • contribs) 22:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

People should use buyer's guides to gauge what they and/or their organization should buy. Wikipedia is not a buyer's guide; it does not and should not make recommendations as to what to buy, it should just present the facts and let people decide for themselves whether they care whether, for example, it's important that a laptop computer have an optical drive. Guy Harris (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

New section for Retina models?

The article is currently broken up by external design iterations, then by internal design revisions. Since the new 'Retina' model significantly differs from the concurrently-offered 'Unibody' model, wouldn't it be prudent to split the newest revision into its own section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamTheGeek (talk • contribs) 00:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I concur, as it has been billed as the "next generation" MBP.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
In support of this idea, please note that Apple has introduced a new model number series for the retina macbook, starting with A1398.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
MacBook Pro#Third_generation: Retina. Guy Harris (talk) 04:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

New page for Retina models?

I agree!--88.111.127.125 (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

You agree that there should be a separate section for the Retina MBP? That's good, because it's had that section since June 12, 2012, i.e. it's been that way for over three months (and was that way for at least a day before the "I concur" comment, hence my response to that comment; the section title has changed, but the section is still there). Guy Harris (talk) 20:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I mean a separate page!--88.111.121.131 (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, then, that's a separate item. The person who asked originally didn't ask for a separate page, so asking for a separate page is a separate question.
And, no, it shouldn't get a separate page, any more than each iteration of, say, the iMac should get a separate page. Guy Harris (talk) 20:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
The name thoug is the "MacBook Pro with Retina Display" http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/--88.111.121.131 (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
It is? The Mac section of the Apple Web site has a list of items at the top; the items are "MacBook Air", "MacBook Pro", "Mac mini", "iMac", "Mac Pro", and "OS X Mountain Lion". There aren't separate items for "MacBook Pro without Retina display" and "MacBook Pro with Retina display". Given that they're still selling the non-Retina MBP, they're using "with Retina display" to distinguish between the two models; I suspect they'll eventually get rid of "with Retina display" if they stop offering models without Retina displays. Guy Harris (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
But the iPhone 4s has a separate page!--88.111.121.131 (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
So what's the criterion for deciding whether a given new model gets a new page? For the iMac, there are separate pages for the original iMac G3, the iMac G4 (very significant design change - much bigger visible difference than the thickness change between the unibody and Retina MBP - and processor generation change), the iMac G5 (again, significant design change, and processor generation change), and the Intel-based iMac (switch to x86; two or three generations of design, and many generations of processor, all on one page). For the PowerBook, there were separate pages for several generations, with a processor family change (68k -> PowerPC) and several design changes, ending with the titanium and aluminum shell. The MacBook Pro used the same design as the last PowerBooks, but switched to x86, and the product line name changed from PowerBook to MacBook Pro. There's no instruction-set change between the Retina MBP and previous MBP models; the external design change isn't huge (it's thinner, but that's about it). For x86, processor generation changes aren't as significant as they were in the PowerPC era (Intel just keeps cranking out new generations), so that's not a reason for a new page. For the iMac, the main reasons for new pages were external design changes (which happened to be accompanied by processor generation changes); for the PowerBook, it also appears to have been based on external design changes.
So it looks as if, for Macs, the new pages are either for significant external design changes or for instruction-set changes, neither of which happened for the Retina MBP.
For iPhones and iPads, there's a new page for every generation, regardless of how significant the changes are. If we go with that model, there'd be separate pages for the original MBP, the unibody MBP, and the retina MBP - and maybe even for multiple generations of unibody MBPs.
For iPod touches, however, there's only the iPod Touch page, even though the 4th generation added a Retina display. That's the model currently being used for the MacBook Pro page. Why is the iPhone model, rather than the iPod touch model, the right one for the MacBook Pro? Guy Harris (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
No it should be
  • Orignl MBP
  • Discrete MBP
  • Retina MBP
And a significant design did happen!--79.69.105.94 (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Presumably you mean "Original MBP", "Unibody MBP", and "Retina MBP" - the "discrete" MBP was the original one, in which the case was made out of multiple parts, and was replaced by the "unibody" MBP, where the case was carved out of a single chunk of aluminum.
And I said "external design" - there was a more significant external design change from the original MBP to the unibody MBP than there was from the unibody MBP to the thinner unibody Retina MBP. Neither of those design changes were as significant as the change from the iMac G3 to the iMac G4 or from the iMac G4 to the iMac G5. Guy Harris (talk) 19:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
So didn't you just prove me right?--79.69.105.94 (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
No - note, for example, that I said "Neither of those design changes were as significant as the change from the iMac G3 to the iMac G4 or from the iMac G4 to the iMac G5", so the fact that those iMac models all have their own pages is not sufficient, by itself, to argue that the original-to-unibody or unibody-to-Retina design changes justify giving each of them their own pages. The Intel-based iMac went from all plastic to aluminum with a plastic back (a change more like the difference between the old plastic MacBook and the MacBook Pro than like the difference between the original and unibody MBP, much less the difference between the unibody and Retina MBP) and then to all-aluminum, but they don't have their own pages. So, again, how much of an external design change justifies a separate page? Guy Harris (talk) 00:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
I totally agree, a new page would be wasteful. On top of that, it'd probably be a stub, or half the sentences would start with "As with the unibody MacBook...". Similar to your above arguments, why don't the two different versions of Microsoft Surface (now PixelSense) have separate pages? In fact, the second iteration, a totally new setup, both hardware and software-wise, has only a few lines in the main article, as that is all it needs. A Retina-specific article would be made up of a tiny section of prose and a list of specs; this, in my opinion, doesn't warrant a new article. drewmunn (talk) 11:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

SATA speeds

Hello I was trying to see information on the SATA controllers and their speeds, thought it would be interesting since it's hard to find out. Currently I'm looking at getting an SSD and figured I would be able to see the SATA speed of my computer.Saxophonemn (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User OSX believes that we should use an outdated pic instead of the newrest retina model pic please explain. Retina is the newest model, and the 17 inch is discontinued. Leave as is before changing. Obtund 22:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The Retina image is unfree, is replaceable (so "fair-use" is not applicable). Also, this article deals with three generations of MacBook Pro, so any version is valid as an image. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but it isn't replaceable does that image have the retina laptop...i think not ObtundTalk 02:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is replaceable. You can buy these now, therefore you can take a photo of them. I suggest you read WP:Fairuse. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not one to say that I'm an expert or even understand all this "fair use" bull crap crap that keeps being spouted around all the time. In fact most of it makes me sick to my stomach, literally. Therefore I usually try to stay out of such conflicts, but Fair Use allows such use if "none" others are available, not if they are potentially available. Just because the laptop is available for sale, does not necessarily mean that a "free" image is readily available for use on the page, nor is their proof that any can be created at all. Their not in stores, only online. Its easy to say "its replaceable", but not offer any alternatives.--JOJ Hutton 12:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Fair-use is reserved for when a free image cannot be or would be very difficult to obtain. Since Apple has released the new computer, it is available at some Apple stores, and some owners have received their shipments already (see Flickr images here), I cannot see how one could claim "fair-use". OSX (talk • contributions) 13:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Too bad none of the Flickr images are released under a CC license. Zach Vega (talk to me) 14:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
There is no such replacement for the product...case closed. ObtundTalk 23:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
You are being extremely unreasonable. You have clearly not read WP:Fairuse, and if this remains a problem after this post, I will be reporting you to an administrator for disruptive editing and copyright violation. Your behaviour is not acceptable. Just to reiterate—these machines are available at Apple stores and there is nothing stopping you, I, or anyone else from taking a camera there and obtaining photographs. Thank you, OSX (talk • contributions) 00:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok we are going to go to a consensus right now. And remember there is nothing stopping us but we choose not to so there is no replacement. Everyone please vote below, voting will end June 21, 2012 00:00 (UTC) ObtundTalk 15:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
This seems simple. If there is an image that can be used as a replacement then provide a direct link. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
An image was found to replace it, and is now in use. ObtundTalk 00:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Consensus/voting

Please use *'''Retina image''' if you believe that we should keep the retina image or *'''13/15/17 image''' if you believe that the image with the 13, 15, and 17 inch laptop is the way to go.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As a note for the last posted message, the "a few more pictures" link is too broad. Here is the specific link that I believe the commentor meant to post: https://www.flickr.com/photos/chabose/sets/72157630050031507/ — Supuhstar * — 19:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Cleaner image?

I was going to clean up the current headline image to remove the background and apply some colour correction filters, but when I set to this, I found that there's no real way to get rid of the background as it interacts too much with the subject (the front of the MacBook is partially obscured). Would someone with the Retina version be able to upload a cleaner image, or one where the subject isn't obscured so it can be cleaned up? Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonicdrewdriver (talk • contribs) 17:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree!--88.111.121.131 (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The Retina MBP's flash storage is removable and uses SATA signals

According to AnandTech, the flash storage in the MBP is a removable module that uses SATA signals but uses a proprietary connector:

The SSD in the Retina Display MacBook Pro is technically removable, it exists on a separate PCB held in by a single screw as you can see from the iFixit-supplied image below:
The dimensions of the SSD's PCB are physically different than the gumstick form factor used in the MacBook Pro, however the connector may be physically compatible with the 2012 MacBook Air SSD (similar pinout). Apple maintained a very high pin pitch on the 2011 MacBook Air SSD connector, and I had heard a number of complaints about that connector from those who have tried designing with it. It's no surprise that Apple changed the connector for this year. Keep in mind that although the interface is electrically SATA, it is not physically SATA or mSATA or any other standardized interface - this is entirely Apple's own creation. I suspect we'll see 3rd party vendors produce SSD upgrades in the future, but unlike previous Apple SSDs, performance won't be a reason to want to upgrade. Samsung's PM830 is quite honestly the best behaved SSD controller I have used under OS X, it is no surprise that Apple chose it.

The solid state drive page says

A solid-state drive (SSD), sometimes improperly called a solid-state disk or electronic disk, is a data storage device that uses integrated circuit assemblies as memory to store data persistently. SSD technology uses electronic interfaces compatible with traditional block input/output (I/O) hard disk drives.

all of which applies to the Retina Display MBP's storage. Guy Harris (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I see no reason that it shouldn't fall into the SSD category, as it is solid state, and is recognised by the computer as a drive. Furthermore, the MacBook Air has less reason to be be listed as having an SSD, so why should this be different. For now, I note that this has been changed back in the article, but I think it's important to clarify this one way or another officially, as we're likely to see more manufacturers using non-standard storage options now they're not confined to a certain size/shape by hardware restrictions. drewmunn (talk) 07:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I.e., an SSD doesn't need to be removable? That makes sense to me - if some computer had a conventional hard drive superglued to the motherboard, that drive wouldn't cease to be a hard drive, so why should it be different for an SSD? Guy Harris (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

It is all flash storage not an SSD --88.111.127.125 (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it is flash storage in the form of an SSD; as I said above, the description of an SSD, as given in the solid state drive page, applies to it. Guy Harris (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
No lacks many of the charactersitcs of a SSD
It is all flash storage--88.111.127.125 (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Tell me one single characteristic of an SSD that it lacks. According to the solid-state drive page:
A solid-state drive (SSD) (sometimes improperly referred to as a "solid-state disk" or "electronic disk") is a data storage device that uses integrated circuit assemblies as memory to store data persistently. SSD technology uses electronic interfaces compatible with traditional block input/output (I/O) hard disk drives. SSDs do not employ any moving mechanical components, which distinguishes them from traditional magnetic disks such as hard disk drives (HDDs) or floppy disks, which are electromechanical devices containing spinning disks and movable read/write heads.
The storage in a Retina MBP is a data storage device. It uses integrated circuit assemblies (flash memory and controllers) as memory to store the data in question. As indicated, it uses Serial ATA as its interface; that interface is also used by traditional block input/output (I/O) hard disk drives. It does not use any moving mechanical components.
So that's all of the characteristics of an SSD listed in the solid-state drive page.
And "it is all flash storage" doesn't mean it's not an SSD; if it were part flash and part conventional hard drive, that would mean it's not an SSD, as a hybrid drive of that sort would "employ [a] moving mechanical [component]", i.e. the hard drive, so being "all flash storage", while not a requirement for being an SSD (an SSD could conceivably be made from battery-backed-up conventional RAM, or magnetoresistive random-access memory, or phase-change memory, or...), helps it be an SSD. Guy Harris (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Apple does not call it an SSD, it is not in an SSD form factor it is none removable!--88.111.121.131 (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
What is an "SSD form factor"? The "Form factor" section of the solid-state drive lists several form factors, including bare-board form factors, such as the module in the Retina MBP. As the solid-state drive page notes:
The size and shape of any device is largely driven by the size and shape of the components used to make that device. Traditional HDDs and optical drives are designed around the rotating platter or optical disc along with the spindle motor inside. If an SSD is made up of various interconnected integrated circuits (ICs) and an interface connector, then its shape could be virtually anything imaginable because it is no longer limited to the shape of rotating media drives.
And, as the iFixit link above indicates, and as this replacement SSD for the Retina MBP indicates, it most definitely is removable. Guy Harris (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I think for now we can call it an SSD, as it satisfies all criteria listed. As mentioned above, bare-board form factors are listed in the SSD page, so why not class them as SSDs? On top of this, one of the main differences between flash and SSD memory is considered to be speed, with flash performing at around 10-30MB/s, and SSD around 100-300MB/s. Considering this, and the fact that the MacBook claims a maximum of 500MB/s, so that places it in SSD territory. Take a look at the image on this site, showing the system profiler, where Apple lists the storage solution as an SSD. We could go on arguing about this forever, but this is the closest I can get to proof that it should be listed as SSD. drewmunn (talk) 07:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The "SSD memory" in the Retina MBP, and in the non-Retina MBPs equipped with SSDs rather than hard drives, is flash memory; I'm not sure what the distinction your drawing between "flash" and "SSD" is. They're orthogonal notions - an SSD can use a number of different technologies, including flash, and flash memory can be used in SSDs that have a disk-style external interface such as SATA or SCSI (normally NAND flash), or in USB drives (although, given that you can have pretty fast USB drives, one could argue that a flash thumb drive is just a really small SSD), or attached directly to a memory controller and used as read-mostly memory (NOR flash). Guy Harris (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
By Apples own defintions flash storage There’s a reason they call it “flash.” all-flash storage--88.111.121.131 (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I see no definition there. A solid-state drive is, as per the page, "is a data storage device that uses integrated circuit assemblies as memory to store data persistently." Such a device, as the page notes, can use flash memory integrated circuits, along with a flash-memory controller integrated circuit; such a solid-state drive would be "flash storage", so it's not as if there's "flash storage" and there's "solid-state drives", with the two being different. "Flash storage", if implemented "[using] electronic interfaces compatible with traditional block input/output (I/O) hard disk drives", would be a form of "solid-state drive".
And as for "all-flash storage", Apple offers several machines with "all-flash storage". Some of them, such as the "MacBook Pro, 13- and 15-inch", offer a choice between a hard disk drive and a solid-state drive, and some of them, such as the "MacBook Pro with Retina display", do not offer that choice. That's what "[building] a notebook around an all-flash architecture" means - they explicitly decided not to support HDD's in the Retina MBP, so they, for example, didn't bother to make it thick enough for a standard HDD". It does not mean that it has some form of flash storage that's utterly different from the flash storage that's in the non-Retina MBP, it just means that they can't use SSDs that have the same form factor as an HDD. Guy Harris (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I said about the form factorr!--88.111.121.131 (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
And I said:
What is an "SSD form factor"? The "Form factor" section of the solid-state drive lists several form factors, including bare-board form factors, such as the module in the Retina MBP. As the solid-state drive page notes:
The size and shape of any device is largely driven by the size and shape of the components used to make that device. Traditional HDDs and optical drives are designed around the rotating platter or optical disc along with the spindle motor inside. If an SSD is made up of various interconnected integrated circuits (ICs) and an interface connector, then its shape could be virtually anything imaginable because it is no longer limited to the shape of rotating media drives.
several comments ago, so "but it isn't the same size as a hard drive, it's just a circuit board" doesn't prove anything whatsoever. Guy Harris (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
@Guy Harris: I'm referring to the difference of using standard NAND Flash Storage, and Flash-based SSD, specifically how the data is interfacing with the system. In the case of the SSD inside a MBP, it uses SATA-style signalling. Side note, I think that Apple have marketed 'All Flash' primarily to highlight the lack of disks, and to make it sound fast; the same reason Thunderbolt and Lightning have fast-sounding names. drewmunn (talk) 11:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Flash-based SSDs use NAND rather than NOR flash. Presumably this isn't a difference between "NAND flash storage" and "flash-based SSDs", as flash-based SSDs are NAND flash storage; what's an example of the slower non-SSD flash device you're thinking of, and what makes it slower - a slower controller? Guy Harris (talk) 17:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
Devices such as iPads use NAND flash storage, but they are not SSDs, it's simply Flash storage soldered directly to the logic board of the device. This saves space, but slows connection. The SSDs in Airs/MBPs are Flash memory sticks attached to the device through a SATA controller, rather than directly onto the device. This difference in controller provides the main distinction, as it processes data differently, providing the speed difference; so yes, controller type is the difference I'm speaking of. drewmunn (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Memory type - DDR3 versus DDR3L

  1. A minor, "knit-picking", criticism is the erroneous use of MHz to describe data rate which is correctly described using transfers per second and not hertz. So 1600 MT/s PC3-12800 DDR3 SDRAM is correct while 1600 MHz PC3-12800 DDR3 SDRAM is incorrect even though this misnomer is commonly used by memory retailers. See also Double data rate#Relation of Bandwidth and Frequency.
  2. In the section for Second generation (unibody), MacBook Pro#Technical specifications 2 the MacBook Pro (MBP) system memory type is described as 1600 MHz PC3-12800 DDR3L SDRAM however, I think this is an error. According to the technical specifications published at the Apple store webpage for MBP the memory type for the rMBP (Retina MBP) is indeed DDR3L however, the memory type for the current (June 2012 announced) MacBook Pro (non-Retina display) is simply DDR3. This memory type distinction is consistent with later comments made about the rMBP memory being soldered to the motherboard and therefore not accessible for upgrade by the end user.
    • The "L" suffix denotes low voltage. DDR3 uses 1.5V whereas DDR3L uses 1.35V. See also DDR3 SDRAM.
  3. At the corresponding section for the Third generation (Retina) model MacBook Pro#Technical specifications 3 the correct SODIMM designation should be 1600 MT/s PC3L-12800 DDR3L SDRAM

I'd make the edit to these tables myself but I am not a regular editor at wikipedia and will defer to whatever the current policy is.

Najevi (talk) 09:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'll instigate the second change, as my research indicates that you're correct. The first point, however, is a bit of an issue. We go by what our sources say, and our sources say 1600 MHz. If our sources are wrong, and you can find one that is correct (and passes notability), then we'll replace it. However, as with Jimmy Wales' birthday, some things on Wikipedia are sourced from possibly flawed origins. Apple use the term 'speed' when describing the RAM in their MacBooks (according to the system report I've just generated), so that may explain the discrepancy. As the term 'data rate' is never explicitly used on the MBP page, I shall assume we're not documenting it. In which case, a speed of 1600MHz is correct. I don't personally feel I have enough knowledge to implement the final change, so I'll leave that to another editor if they feel it's appropriate. drewmunn talk 10:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Lukegm (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I've just edited the table discussed here on pretty much the same point, 1.5 vs 1.35 RAM voltage. I've added the RAM voltages used by Early & Late 2011 MBPs and by 2012 MBPs, "Voltage 1.5V" and "Voltage 1.35V" respectively beneath the RAM specs in the table, along with references from Intel and overclockers.co.uk. To support the facts that, the voltages were correct for those generation of Core processors and therefore MBPs. I did this after spending hours reading through unhelpful forums. That were 70% wild speculation on what the correct voltages were for the different generations of MBPs and Intel Core processors, the other 30% appeared to be a mix of; blindly restating what someone else had said, and complete faith that because the authors of the posts had randomly installed new RAM of one voltage or the other and because their MBP still worked afterward, they had miraculously chosen the correct voltage for that generation of laptop (but mostly they'd just been a little lucky and had actually installed dual voltage RAM). After reading through a fair bit of documentation tonight on the Intel site, it does sound like there is about 0.5 - 0.25 volt tolerance, and so putting the wrong voltage RAM in, probably wouldn't be disastrous. But as I've been doing this research to help a friend out, the last thing I wanted to do was suggest he buy a type of RAM that wouldn't work in his model of MBP.
Regarding the references I've included, I'm quite happy with the reference for the 2nd generation MBPs and core processors, 1.5V, as I found a data sheet addendum and a co-researched article on hardforum.com, by the site/forum and Intel, that clearly states 1.5v is the correct RAM voltage for those processors. However, the only clear reference to 1.35v for 3rd generation core processors I found, is actually just a set of RAM test results where Intel had tested a number of different vendor's RAM and at the top of each table it said the test was conducted at 1.35v. So, a bit a of a reach / assumption on my part, that 1.35v must then be the manufacture's recommended RAM voltage. But I couldn't actually find anything better (its probably just that I wasn't looking in the right place). I just wanted to point this out, in case anyone comes across a 3rd gen data sheet with the RAM voltage definitively stated. Then it would be a good idea to update/replace the current reference.
Anyway I hope someone finds this useful. It would've literally saved me hours of research, if this info had already been captured on this page, because Wikipedia was actually one of the first places I went looking. Now I can go and order the RAM upgrade for my friend without worrying that I'm going to waste his money or damage his computer.
Cheers

Early 2011 MBP and on

I am pretty sure that they had a base model, at least the 17", that shipped with 8GB RAM, not (only) 4GB as stated. 70.40.161.130 (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, this was not the case. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think they started shipping with 8 GB default RAM until the retinas. Airplaneman ✈ 13:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

F4 Key

This has just been partially corrected by an IP. Could I ask whether or not we have to say it doesn't have an F4 key? The key is there, just as F1 - F12 are there, but they have overlaying functions. I don't have an older model to check, but my pre-Lion Apple Keyboard (with my iMac) has a dashboard quick link on the F4 key. Is this the same with that age MacBooks? drewmunn talk 17:53, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

If the fact that hitting F4 doesn't perform the F4 function, even if fn+F4 does, means it doesn't have an F4 key, then my MBP has no F keys, even though it has 12 keys with "F1" through "F12" in the lower-right corner and, at least in Terminal, fn+Fn sure seems to act like a function key (sending an escape sequence). Unless there were older MBPs where some of the function keys acted as function keys by default and some required the fn key, in which case you could argue that the ones that required the fn key were different from those that didn't, I'd say that we shouldn't say they didn't have Fn keys. Guy Harris (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
That's what I thought. There is a tick box somewhere in SysPref that can swap between default behaviours with special/function keys. I've just got my PowerBook G4 out of storage, and it has F8 - F12 as just function keys, so I don't know about the earlier generation of MBPs. drewmunn talk 06:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

New Macbook

The article needs to be updated due to the new MacBook Pro. Daniel 94.161.250.15 (talk) 13:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

no No action It is covered comprehensively.  drewmunn  talk  20:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Possible spam from Faltschuler

There are additions of third party components by Faltschuler in the technical specifications of the macbook pros which do not seem appropriate. 67.243.160.230 (talk) 21:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Addition of 1TB drive as option for Mid-2012 MBP

Having spoken to Apple today, they offer a 1TB upgrade on newly ordered non-retina MBP's from mid-2012 so have added appropriate option in the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.196.244 (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

17 in was discontinued not 15 in

Lead says so and it's what I remember. However table seems to turn this around. And it should say 17 in and 15 in, not 17" and 15in. comp.arch (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi I would like to add this information of the action.mbp2011.com to this page. I believe it gives more information on the MacBookPro and the real quality of this line of MBP made in 2011.These models are experiencing some major GPU failures and there is an original thread on the apple support site with close to 400 pages and 600k view count, yet Apple remains mum of the issue. Thus I do believe that this link, which is based on reality and not a fictional malicious attempt of disinformation, does belong here, on this page as important information on this model and as such is not classifiable as "linkspam" and should not be constantly deleted. Please advice where and how to add this information. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.166.85.49 (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

MacBook Pro 2014

Does this mean that MacBook Pro 2014 is out? --Jobu0101 (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Mid 2014 15.4" specs wrong?

I have a Mid 2014 15.4" model, and when I take a screenshot, it saves as 3,840 × 2,400, not this article's reported 2,880 × 1,800. Can we have a re-confirmation of the resolution? — Supuhstar * — 16:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

New Early 2015 MacBook model is 12" and not Pro

The new Early 2015 model now appears in the table of model comparison, but that new MacBook is not Pro, it's just plain MacBook. Also, it's not 13" but 12". Latest MacBook Pro released still seems to be Mid 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlchemyOfMusic (talk • contribs) 19:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

MacBook Pro 13" Early 2015 SSD Speed Interface

MacBook Pro 13" Early 2015 SSD Speed Interface actually is PCIe 2.0 x4 5.0GT/s and not "PCIe 3.0 x4 8.0 GT/s (25.6 Gbit/s) (13")[137]" mention in page

Please see the photo below

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ly4603j44lkv2oe/ssd.png

this is capture on my newly bought MacBook Pro early 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imfelixlaw (talk • contribs) 06:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Specs table unclear

In the 3rd generation specifications table, there are multiple model numbers for each release. In the same column there more than one specification mentioned, eg processor. It would be really useful if there was some indication of which model number relates to which specification. Perhaps there should be one table, similar to the existing table, that shows a broad comparison of changes with each new hardware release, plus another table that shows the correct specification for each model number. For instance, I want to buy a Late 2013 model with 15" matt (non glare) screen; how can I find the correct model number?

Some explanation of model numbers would also be useful. Eg ME866*/A is not an Apple model number, the * is being used as a wildcard to mean B or LL. What does B or LL stand for? Okay I've found the answer, see https://www.theiphonewiki.com/wiki/Model_Regions. Perhaps this article should mentions the * means regional model number.FreeFlow99 (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. FreeFlow99 (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Cyberbot II has detected links on MacBook Pro which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.change.org/p/timothy-d-cook-replace-or-fix-all-2011-macbook-pro-with-graphics-failure
    Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand that this link can drive more traffic to the petition. It has been removed. Airplaneman ✈ 17:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Mid 2012

The Mid 2012 has a column in two tables. In the first table it is marked green to indicate that it is current. In the other table it isn't. Why? --Jobu0101 (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

During that time, Apple was transitioning between the unibody and the retina MBPs, so for a while, they were selling both. In fact, to date, they are still selling the second generation 13" MBP, which is why one of the 2012 columns is still green. Does that make sense? Airplaneman ✈ 13:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Bad undo

Can someone rollback to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MacBook_Pro&oldid=746505043 ? I accidentally saved some work in progress and when I tried to undo it, I undid some other changes as well. Neicdk (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the heads up. — Synoli ⁕ 22:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

There are a few issues with incoming links which point to section headings:

  1. The generated page for the MacBook Pro article as it stands has some invalid HTML because the article contains a couple redundant Template:Anchor instances. For the HTML markup to be valid, any anchor which just duplicates an existing element ID needs to be removed.
  2. Some of the incoming links use rather messy URL anchors (e. g. Third_generation_.28Retina.29). This style is actually discouraged (example 1, 2) and should be replaced by redirects. The article does have a few clean anchor IDs (example) but those appear to be unused.
  3. The sections Third generation (Retina) and Fourth generation (Touch Bar) lack clean, explicit anchors. Adding those will keep incoming links (or redirects) from breaking if a section title ever changes.
  4. Likewise, the individual Technical specification sub-sections need a set of clean and unique anchors too in order to prevent other articles to accidentally link to the wrong section. Example: The article Pentalobe security screw erroneously links to the First generation subsection even though it obviously refers to the second generation.

I’m going to give it a shot and create the missing anchors and redirects. After that, I’ll try updating (hopefully) all affected incoming links.

— Synoli ⁕ 11:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Update: done. — Synoli ⁕ 13:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Split into multiple articles

This article is getting unwieldy and long. I suggest we split it into multiple articles. Anybody agree / disagree? Bonomont (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

2016 models discussions

Retina 4th Gen PCI-e HDDs

The article suggests these PCI-e based cards are onboard, which according to early reviews, is not the case. OWC have dismantled the 13 inch model and found they are actually removable. See http://blog.macsales.com/38440-ssd-in-late-2016-entry-level-macbook-pro-removable for information. Grez868 (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Memory specs in table

Can anyone verify that one machine (base) uses 1866MHz and the others 2133Mhz speed memory, but both also equal PC3-14900? Possible I suppose, just odd, and a source would be good as it seems odd on the face of it. Thank you. NJA (t/c) 08:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The source of the speed memory is apple's website (http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs/). Therefore the PC3-14900 in the Touch Bar models is wrong and the correct one being PC3-17000. Christou c (talk) 09:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Reception / Reviews

Anyone have time to take some of the initial negative hands-on reviews to do a small bit on some people expressing concern over the price hike and rationale Apple gave, the 16GB ram limitation, again with Apple’s reasoning and possibly lack of Magsafe and nothing but USB-C ports with TB3? If not I may do, just tied out with other things at the moment. NJA (t/c) 06:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

OK I’ve made an effort (changes), of course trying to comment on what seems to be main comments vs the previous models using a real review. Maybe more can come when a hands-on of the 13 or 15-inch with touchbar happens. I didn’t cover the price increase or the temporary price reduction of dongles due to criticism, possibly other things. Just keep it real & straight and bear in mind with the content and wording the article will age so what seems a big deal or relevant now mightn’t be down the line. NJA (t/c) 09:27, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on MacBook Pro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Obsolete Hardware

Who decided to remove the technical specs for the obsolete hardware? My obsolete systems still work great and it is always needed to see model numbers. PLease place the information again.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.91.135.118 (talk) 11:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Latest possible operating system

In the interest of not edit warring, I'll note my removal of the "(Unofficially, can run macOS 10.12 "Sierra" with Sierra Patcher. Requires additional patching or hardware for WiFi)" note from "Latest possible operating system" in the Gen1 MBP table was reverted here by Shaocaholica. I don't see why a third-party, private, unofficial, and unsupported patch/kludge is getting mentioned in a table of "Technical Specifications" which I would assume is meant to reflect factual, reliably-sourced information. At the very least, I think the prominence of this material should be downgraded to an {{efn}}-style note although ideally, it should only be mentioned in prose and not remain part of the table at all. Actually, unless there are reliable sources that backup the claim, how is this not WP:PROMO? —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Re: Latest possible operating system

It's relevant for a lot of people still using this old hardware. 10 years from now no one will know if these older Macs could reliably run unsupported Apple operating systems if they visit this page and that information is not there because even I will not be bothered to edit this page 10 years from now. We're still talking about the same OS here, not some weird 3rd party thing. I could understand if this were an obscure 3rd party thing no one knows about but its not. It's the same OS this hardware was made to run.

The table makes sense because a lot of the readers I know jump to the table for that info and its visually easier to see the cut off points.

Shaocaholica (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MacBook Pro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MacBook Pro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Issues regarding the 2016 Macbook Pro keyboards

I was wondering if it would be appropriate to add anecdotal information regarding the keyboard in the 2016 Macbook Pros? They've been getting a lot of attention in Twitter and the press. Although it's all anecdotal, it seems to be a systemic problem, or at least worth talking about. Some examples:

Casey Johnston's original(year old) article

Casey Johnston's latest article with many tweets from other sources complaining about the keyboard

Most Apple commentators and developers(John Gruber, Jason Snell, Serenity Caldwell, Marco Arment, etc) all seem to agree that this is a problem and quite a big design screw up. Should be worth adding at least a mention in the reception section imo, if not an entire subsection(like Antennagate).

Definitely worth adding now. There are plenty of reliable sources to choose from

| MK17b | (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Added here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacBook_Pro#Reception_4 | MK17b | (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Could use more editors at MacKeeper

The MacKeeper article has chronic and ongoing disputes. It could therefore use more editors. Thanks. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Removing pending changes

Hey all, I've decided to remove the pending changes protection I applied to this article way back in 2013. I don't think the level of disruption is frequent enough to justify calling every edit from a new user to the attention of reviewers. Please let me know at any time if you think protection should be re-applied. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 02:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Screen Delamination Retina 2012-2015

The problem described in the headline has affected some people and also lead to lawsuits and a repair program by Apple. Sadly, I'm not an English native speaker so I would appreciate if someone could add this information to the article.--Punkt64 (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:MacBook Pro/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: (klat) kirihS 03:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well written

(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct
Pass Prose is clear and well-written, except for the distracting tables (see 2(b))
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation
Pass Seems to fall in line with WP:MOS

Factually written and verifiable

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout
References are OK where they are placed, however there seems to be unreferenced material (see (b))
(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines
Sorry, but there are way too many statistics in this article that are uncited. As a cursory look:
  • The original 15" MacBook Pro was announced on January 10, 2006 during Steve Jobs' keynote at the MacWorld Expo.
  • The 17" model was later unveiled on April 24, 2006.
  • Almost the entirety of the Unibody MacBook Pro/Development and Industrial Design sections
  • The updated Macbook Pro 13" and the 15" would each have up to seven hours of battery, while the 17" would keep its eight-hour capacity.
As such, this article is relatively unverifiable. This is a critical issue to fix before this article can pass GA.
(c) it contains no original research
No indication of original research

Broad in its coverage

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic
Pass Seems to cover the main aspects
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
Don't Know I am concerned with the tables in the article. Are exact specifications down to the smallest detail (e.g., read/write speeds of every type of disc media) really necessary? I consider the tables distracting to the reader. Preferably this could be rewritten more generically in prose or in a more collapsed table that doesn't take the entire width of the article.

Neutral

it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
Many references appear to come from apple.com. Preferably we would see more critical review of the product. Naturally, apple.com is appropriate for technical details, but certain things like the topics about battery life which seem to be hit hard in this article may be more appropriate with some reviews of those claims rather than just citing Apple's claims directly.

Stable

it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Pass No content disputes

Illustrated, if possible

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
All free
(b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
All images have captions

General comments

The table in the article is generally distracting to the reader. Preferably, this would be refactored so it doesn't take up the entire width of the article. This probably is impossible to do without removing some details, but the article is probably already over-detailed anyway, so this is OK. Beyond that, the article needs better adherence to WP:V. It is a well written article, don't get me wrong, but it's still a little rough around the edges.

Overall

Unfortunately, I have to fail this GA nomination at this time. The article seems to have come a long way since its first review, but it still needs some work. Unfortunately, I think some of the work since the first review has caused the information in this article to become over-detailed and thus distracting. Additionally, some details in the article are unreferenced and thus are unverifiable. We must ensure that we can meet verifiability policies before I can accept this article as a GA. --(klat) kirihS 03:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Weight?

One gripe I have with this otherwise good article is that it does not say a word about the models' respective/comparative weights, thus leaving out a piece of crucial information on its topic. Cinosaur (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to create a new section about the same thing: the article doesn't mention how much they weight. This is pretty critical information for a portable computer. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
You could add it to the wikitables. Airplaneman ✈ 19:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done (dimensions as well) Airplaneman ✈ 18:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:MacBook Pro/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gary King (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing! I'll try to address the issues promptly. Airplaneman ✈ 22:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Links for more discrete MBP reviews (haven't gotten to yet)

Second opinion

I have a few concerns and recommendations:

  • Why is so much space dedicated to the latest Core i5/i7 MBPs in the introduction? This update should be summarised to something along the lines of: "During April 2010, Apple updated the MacBook Pro line. Intel Core i5 and Core i7 CPUs were introduced in the 15" and 17" models, while the 13" retained the Core 2 Duo processors. Video hardware was also uprated to newer nVidia units." Details regarding the charger unit, RAM, and resolution, et cetera, do not warrant a mention in the lead.


  • References in the lead: if the lead is meant to summarise the rest of the article, then it should not mention anything not mentioned below. Those references are redundant.



  • "...also introducing the built-in battery which was later used in the rest of the MacBook Pro line in June at WWDC 2009 and in the MacBook in October 2009.": change this to: "...also introducing the built-in battery which was later used in all MacBook Pros from June 2009 and in the MacBook from October 2009."


  • "When first introduced, the MacBook Pro was noted for lacking FireWire 800 and S-Video ports, although FireWire 800 was added to later MacBook Pro models and was present in every version of the 17" models.": this sentence appears to soon. Mention the features first before the criticism.





  • In the 2006 model's reception section, I see nothing but positive praise (except for the heat and de-tuned graphics). Were there no other complaints with this model? I certainly had a couple with mine. What about the discontinuation of the "premium compact" model (PowerBook 12")?


  • For the "Table of models", could the exact date of release for each revision be included? Apple's own "early 2006" designations are a little vague.

















  • The article mentions the battery "will hold 80% of its charge after 1,000 recharges". This is useless on its own, what about the discrete model (and the original unibody)? For the record, it's 300 cycles for the discrete.


  • "...would each have up to seven hours of battery..." ---> "would each have up to a claimed seven hours of battery life". It would have to be a miracle to actually get that number.
    •  Done - I've gotten 8.5 hours with ~20% brightness and no backlight editing Wikipedia with the mid 2009 version... :) Airplaneman ✈ 23:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
      • I know that Apple tests the battery under optimum temperature and humidity conditions, uses the lowest level of screen brightness, has AirPort switched on, and changes pages every 20 seconds or so (with Flash disabled I'm sure; see latest Apple vs. Adobe feud for more information). I have the "late 2008" 15" model and have not gotten much more than 3.5 hours. This is the model with the claimed 5 hour battery. Do you have the 17" screen size? These models have an 8 hour battery in "early" and "mid 2009" guises. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:29, 21 April 2010 (UTC)









Thanks so much for giving a second opinion! Airplaneman ✈ 22:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
No worries. I have responded to some of the points above. With regards to the addition of information about the discrete models, more should be added about the yearly changes, like "early 2008", et cetera. The unibody section deals with this quite well. Also, please fix up the dubious sources (one is is wiki) and the references tagged " [dead link]". OSX (talk • contributions) 12:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure. I've responded to a few things above. I'll try to finish up the fixes tomorrow or Friday. Airplaneman ✈ 00:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I think I'll be done with a few more hours of work. What should I do with deprecated parameters in cite templates? Airplaneman ✈ 01:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've just finished making some changes to the technical specification tables, and I've come across a couple of issues. Firstly, the mid and late 2007 models are slightly different, so should be separated into separate columns. The late 2007 versions introduced a "Santa Rosa" chip, whatever that means. The November 1, 2007 addition of the 2.6 GHz processor and larger capacity (and faster) hard drive options signifies this late 2007 update.
 Not done (see below) - Santa Rosa platform was a new chip platform. Arrandale was introduced in this current update in the 15" and 17" models. Airplaneman ✈ 23:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
There also seems to be an issue with the "Late 2008" update for the 17-inch discrete model. There is very little reference to this model online, and I have only managed to find one Apple source, Compatibility Labs Equipment List: Project X.
Well, it's better than nothing. I'll use it - thanks for finding it, as I was having trouble as well! Airplaneman ✈ 23:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
With regards to the referencing, the article should use the {{cite web}} template as opposed to the {{citation}} version. I'll see if I can fix up the references another time, as the referencing is in need of some work. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I did a quick conversion of {{citation}} to {{cite web}}. Gary King (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll continue my work on this article. I'm still not sure what parameter in the cite templates are deprecated, so I don't know what to look for and change when editing. I've tried to look it up, to no avail. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 23:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

About Santa Rosa - see http://www.macrumors.com/2007/11/01/apple-updates-macbooks-to-santa-rosa-gma-x3100/ and http://support.apple.com/kb/SP13. It seems like it was a quiet update, with only options added. I don't think there should be a separate section just for that. I think a mention that "available after November 1" should suffice in the table as well as a prose addition about the Santa Rosa option. What do you think? Airplaneman ✈ 00:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the late 2007 revision was minor, but it was an update nonetheless. Apple uses different model numbers, so I would like to see them separated, although it's up to you. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Can't find the dead links. Airplaneman ✈ 04:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The link was not dead per se, but it was directing me to the "Apple iPhone 0S 4 Event". I've found the correct link and made the change. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Fixed it, although it wasn't really dead, just redirecting more than once. Also, since there are duplicates of footnotes in both the "Table of models" tables, you can use this method to merge them, if you want. It's not necessary, though, since everything's already in place. You might want to look into it, though, at least for future use. Gary King (talk) 04:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me. It's very difficult to manage the notes in the format currently used. It look me several previews before saving to get it right when I made some changes. I have implemented this style in list of Holden vehicles by series, so use that as a template if you like. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you;  Done. I believe I have addressed all of the above concerns. Airplaneman ✈ 00:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
On a side note, I'm still not sure how to fix the deprecated reference parameters. Airplaneman ✈ 00:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Which parameters are deprecated that are used in the article? Gary King (talk) 01:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Some access date parameters, as detailed here. It'd be extremely tedious to pick them out and fix manually. Airplaneman ✈ 03:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I did them all. Gary King (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, the article looks good now. I have a few more requests though:

  1. Mention of the late 2008 unibody upgrade to the 9600M GT GPUs,
  2. Mention of the mid 2009 deletion of the 9600M GT GPU in the base 15-inch model, and
  3. Mention of the mid 2009 model's improved screen.

With the above additions, I would be happy to grant this article good article status, although I will leave the final decision to Gary King as he initiated the review.

As a side note Airplaneman, if you ever intend to pursue featured article status for this article, the references will need some work. At the moment I feel that there are too many Apple.com citations, and not enough "quality" sources like magazines, et cetera. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of the Apple.com references seem to be for tech specs, which makes sense. If you source a magazine for tech specs, they will most likely have gotten it from Apple.com themselves. Gary King (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Not really. Out of 64 references, 30 are hosted by Apple, and only 15 of these are "Technical Specification" pages. When your relying on the manufacturer website for close to 50 percent of your references, that is too much. I have absolutly nothing against the use of Apple's own "Technical Specification" pages for use in the tables, but an additional 15 resources used elsewhere seems a little much.
All I am saying is such a reliance of Apple's own sources is unacceptable for a featured article. I only brought this up as a hint in case the nominator intended to take this article further than GA status. OSX (talk • contributions) 15:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks — noted; I'll try to trim them slowly from the article, favoring instead third party sources for anything and everything possible. I have added the requested information from above. On a side note, I'm thinking of working on MacBook Air next, hoping to have it ready for a GA nom sometime in June or July. Thanks again, Airplaneman ✈ 00:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
The article looks a lot better from when I first reviewed it. I think it meets the GA criteria now, so I'm passing it. Good job to everyone involved! Gary King (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for reviewing! Airplaneman ✈ 00:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
No worries, let me know when you want a review of the MacBook Air article, and I'll see what I can do. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MacBook_Pro/Archive_6&oldid=1142769102"