Jump to content

Talk:Mac (computer)/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

So when should we move?

Since no one answered this above, I’ll ask again: At what point should a move from Macintosh be seriously considered? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

We shouldn't move it, the proposal failed. Move it along, we just finished discussing the subject. Don't discuss it for the next 4 months. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Unilaterally declaring the topic off limits really does nothing to help. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
You were answered repeatedly during each of your redundant posts, already redundant to the same discussion a year ago after which nothing (namely Apple's explicit canon) has changed. You automatically filter out dissent, and talk over it reiteratively like "groundhog day". (WP:ICANTHEARYOU) In other words, what 65.94.171.126 said. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 05:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
We shouldn't, and we won't, for the foreseeable future. This has already been recently discussed; See the above discussion. - Denimadept (talk) 06:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I’m not saying we should move it, and I’m not asking when we should restart the debate. I’m asking specifically when a move would be desirable, what events we ought to wait for, what it would take for the opposers of that RM to support a move. For instance, does the non-historical use of “Macintosh” need to more substantially die out, so that sources like Macworld and Adobe no longer use it? Or do we need to wait for an official proclamation from Apple, and if so, why give the official brand name more precedence here than we normally do? @Smuckola: Responses free of personal allegations (which belong on my still-waiting Talk page and do not belong here) would be more helpful here, and much less likely for me to “filter out.” —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
So why are we talking about it? What needs to happen? Apple changing the name retroactively would probably do it. - Denimadept (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
“…and if so, why give the official brand name more precedence here than we normally do?” I sincerely doubt Apple will ever officially deprecate “Macintosh,” but doesn’t real-world use in reliable third-party sources trump that? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
See the above archived discussion. - Denimadept (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I’m just dense, but the only real answer I see there is that the use of “Macintosh” would need to drop further before a move would be viable. Is that it, or was there more? And I don’t see any discussion of official name vs real-world use, if that’s what you mean. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I mean #Requested move 08 July 2014, as well as #Requested move which is from 2012. This topic comes up every once in a while. We've discussed it as recently as earlier this month. It's a dead topic for now. Come back in 2016. - Denimadept (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I’m aware of my recent RM. Some of the discussion in there was uninformative and even unproductive. That’s why I felt the need to ask what I did in this section and prompt some informative responses. Now since I’ve apparently missed the information you tried to point me to, would you mind stating it explicitly? What needs to change for a move, if there was something other than the use of “Macintosh” dropping further? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
oic. Well, IIRC, I didn't participate in that discussion because it wasn't an issue for me. My position is that there's no need for a move. The computer line has been named "Macintosh" since its announcement in 1984, and nothing has changed. I don't care about the vernacular; this is the official name and the name I use personally when I'm being formal. I have a "Macintosh SE", a "Macintosh Quadra 630", a "Macintosh G5", and a "MacBook Pro", but they're all Macintosh computers. For me, it'd take the end of the Macintosh line, or Apple saying they were formally renaming the line. - Denimadept (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
It's also useful for differentiating it from MAC address. - Denimadept (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
All right, thanks. Sorry for my difficulty in getting the intended question across. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I didn't take part in the above RM discussion but for what its worth, I would have opposed the move. The line was introduced as the Macintosh back in 1984. Each incarnation has its own article and name, so theres no reason for moving the main article at all.--JOJ Hutton 21:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    Does WP:COMMONNAME have any bearing on the name of a product line? Like, if it happened that no sources outside of Apple called the line “Macintosh” anymore (which is not presently the case), would that be grounds for a move? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
What if wishes were fishes? What if the Titanic didn't sink? What if? - Denimadept (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Then we’d have to rewrite the Titanic article. And if use of this full name died out in reliable sources—which is something that could realistically happen—I assume we’d have to move this article. Am I wrong? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a volunteer effort largely run by consensus. If consensus changed, we'd change the name. What would cause consensus to change is largely speculative. I don't think we can come up with a definitive answer to your question. I figure that there's zero chance of this changing, as even if Apple were to retroactively change the name, we'd still record what the name had been. - Denimadept (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
A perfect answer, I think. Thank you. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

"Unibody" issues

The term is linked at its 2nd mention in the text, though it is wikilinked in the infobox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monocoque. The target article does not mention anything other than large vehicles, so whilst the reader may draw an analogy from this that they could probably work out anyway, I challenge the appropriateness of having the link at all. Personally, I was browsing for *specific* information on the nature of the difference in construction of the earlier aluminium bodies with the so-called unibody ones. Anyone in the intimate know care to add a section to Monocoque, or a wlink to another Mac article section where this is better defined? Trev M  ~  16:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

That unibody does not currently discuss unibody construction outside of vehicles does not affect its appropriateness as a wikilink in the Macintosh article; it's no different, really, from adding a link that is currently a red link. In either case, linking is done in hopes that the target will at some point be created (or, in the unibody case, updated) with appropriate information. Ylee (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that Wikipedia should have an article about unibody construction. Unibody had redirected to the tiny subsection Vehicle frame#Unibody (which I just added a very brief description to), and Monocoque states that a unibody is a different thing from a monocoque. Unfortunately, I’m not aware of a better link at present. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request - Narrative is incorrect

By the time that Apple launched the Macintosh in 1984, the IBM PC had already established market dominance. The Mac was never "overtaken" by the IBM PC, because the Mac was never in a leadership position. In fact the Apple II outsold the Mac for several years after the Mac introduction.

This is helpful to review: http://arstechnica.com/features/2005/12/total-share/5/ Hhwong (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Went ahead and fixed it myself Hhwong (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Google docs entries dead

It appears that the footnotes to Google Docs no longer work. I'd remove them, but wonder if someone knows how to restore them to their original form. Thanks. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, these were all replaced by Macintosh919977 on 23 Feb. 2015 -- is there a way to remove these two edits but retain changes since then? -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Macintosh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Macintosh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Macintosh. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Macintosh. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Macintosh. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Macintosh. 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) 11:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Macintosh. 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) 22:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Macintosh. 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) 14:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Clock Speed Clock Rate should be left out of this article

From the Wikipedia article on Clock rate: There are a few mentions of clock speed: "Engineers also continue to find new ways to design CPUs so that they complete more instructions per clock cycle, thus achieving a lower CPI (cycles or clock cycles per instruction) count, although they may run at the same or a lower clock rate as older CPUs. This is achieved through architectural techniques such as instruction pipelining and out-of-order execution which attempts to exploit instruction level parallelism in the code." This means that clock speed was never a serious consideration for Apple or anyone else except through marketing. Certainly AMD could compare their x86 clock speed to "Wintel" platforms because both were generally working with the same software on the same operating systems. It would never be taken as a serious point by Steve Jobs, or any corporate board. Ironically an article cited about clock speed says within: "Intel will emphasize low power consumption and performance, but not megahertz, Brookwood says. (AMD has emphasized performance, not megahertz ratings, for years.) “Intel seems to have kicked the megahertz habit,” says Insight 64’s Brookwood. “It’s probably music to Steve Jobs’ ears,” he adds, noting how Jobs had to explain PowerPC chip performance on applications, not raw megahertz ratings." That's from Analysis: Why Apple picked Intel over AMD'" By Laurianne McLaughlin PCWorld | SEP 15, 2005 The speed of Mac OS X on PowerPC vs Intel would be a better data point, I'm sure those tests were published somewhere. Even then, there's room for argument that they are not actually running identical code, PowerPC was big endian while x86 is little endian. It would be unsurprising if the lower clock rate PowerPC actually beats Mac Intel in various tests, in part because of Altivec vs Streaming SIMD Extensions and SSE2. Note contemporary PowerPC processors were used in the RS/6000 and AS/400 computer families. They also became the dominant processor in automobiles. It seems highly inaccurate to call them "underpowered" in desktop computers. Not in more recent times the Xbox 360 processor; Xenon and the Nintendo GameCube, Wii, and Wii U processors, Sony and Toshiba, for the Cell processor (inside the PlayStation 3 and other devices) are all PowerPC. But in particular I'm critical of "In 2005, a low-end consumer Dell Dimension desktop computer shipped with an Intel Pentium 4 processor clocked at 2.4 GHz, while only a higher-end model of the Power Mac G5's PowerPC 970 (which would have sold for over $2000 USD) processor had a clock speed in that range (the fastest dual-core Power Mac clocked at 2.7 GHz), and the last version of the PowerPC-based iMac had a maximum clock speed of 2.1 GHz." That has nothing to do with performance, as anyone who used Power Mac G5's can attest. I doubt it had any effect on sales, either. Generally professionals (in particular users in graphic design/graphic arts) were well aware of Mac's capabilities and had no interest in clock speed. Neither did corporate buyers for Dell Dimension. Teenage gamers might have felt passionate about that issue, because the clock rate comparisons were heavily marketed to that segment, but that's about it. I'd be very interest to see real work application comparisons (perhaps in Linux distros?)but consumers weren't able to do such comparisons, and most didn't care. Such comparisons should not be made in Wikipedia articles, even if citations from computer publications can be made.vCuvtixo (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 30 June 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. No support has been risen for this move at the current time. (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Macintosh → Mac – Apple refers to the computers as "Mac" on the websites, product descriptions, hardware, software, etc., etc. "Mac" is also the common name. Apple no longer uses Macintosh. If "Mac" isn't specific enough, we can redirect the article to Mac (computer) Ticklewickleukulele (talk) 04:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Just to be clear, this proposal is actually starting two separate discussions. The first is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC discussion because Mac is currently a disambiguation page and Macintosh would have to be established as the primary topic for "Mac" in order to be moved there. I myself don't think that Macintosh as "Mac" has nearly enough prominence to outweigh the many other notable meanings of that term, so I'd strongly advise changing the proposal to something like the suggested Mac (computer). And as to that move, it smells quite a bit like WP:RECENTISM to me (admittedly I don't see anything on that page about article titles)(ok, it's not that recent), but I don't have a strong enough opinion there to give a "vote". Edit: I'd also like to point out that Apple's current branding of their products isn't very important compared to how notable sources refer to the products. -- Fyrael (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now on both issues. Compelling evidence needs to be presented to show that the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Mac" would now be the computer. Secondly, per WP:NCDAB, "Natural disambiguation is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation". I see no compelling advantage in switching to the parenthetical disambiguation title, especially when "Mac (computer)" is longer than "Macintosh". And of course, as Fyrael wrote, a company's current branding of their products is not that important in deciding an article title (see Wikipedia:Official names and WP:TITLETM, among others). Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose; I would put Celtic onomastics as closer to being the primary topic of this term. bd2412 T 03:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose; This last came up 3 years ago, and it was defeated. "Mac" is short for "Macintosh", period end of story. - Denimadept (talk) 04:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

System 7 was a 32-bit rewrite from Pascal to C++ - No!

I'm not sure where this claim in the article comes from? It is definitely not true. System 7 was nothing like a rewrite. And it certainly wasn't in C++! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.100.245 (talk) 06:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 12 December 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Macintosh → Mac (computer) – As per WP:COMMONNAME, we should be using an article name that it's commonly used. Macintosh might be the original name but nowadays everyone refers to them as a Mac computer. Google Trends shows that more people are searching for "Mac computer" than "macintosh". And yes, Mac is short for Macintosh but I again refer you back to WP:COMMONNAME, we should be using the most common name, even if it's a shortened version. Swedeaction (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose – Moving to an ambiguous title that needs a disambiguator seems much worse than the current very recognizable title. And "(computer)" is not a great disambiguator anyway, since it's as much an operating system as a computer. Dicklyon (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This has been discussed over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. Please review the dozen previous discussions on this subject.... you'll see that the consensus has always been to keep the name at Macintosh and that you are not presenting a new argument. Yes, "Mac" is the more common name nowadays, but it is ambiguous, and WP:NATURALDIS recommends "using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title." The same guideline also states that this is preferable to a parenthetical disambiguation. That's why Wikipedia has articles titled "MAC address", "MAC Cosmetics" and "Macintosh" instead of "MAC (networking)", "MAC (cosmetics company)" and "Mac (computer)". Warren -talk- 03:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
You're going to need to present a more compelling case than "I'm right and you're wrong." Warren -talk- 20:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose – Mac is too ambiguous. As Warren stated, Mac could easily refer to a MAC address in computer networking, or some other meaning. Macintosh is the accepted title for the page, and is the historical name for the computer line by Apple Inc. Per MOS:TRADEMARKS, trademarks are irrelevant when deciding on a title for an article. Having Mac (computer) as a redirect is suffice. It has been established per previous consensus that the current title should remain. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 03:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Due to confusion, as elucidated by the above posts/discussions/etc.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as an improvement, but this article really should be at Mac. Yes, it's ambiguous, but I looked over that dab page and it's one obscure use after another. Yes, there are many other uses, but most are unlikely to be sought with the term "mac", and anyone searching with "mac" is almost certainly looking for this article. This is exactly why we have the concept of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --В²C ☎ 23:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey, here's a test for you to try -- Open a browser in "incognito mode" and try doing a search for "Mac". You know what the #1 result is for me? MAC Cosmetics, not Apple. On balance, half of the first 20 search results are cosmetics-related, mixed in with Apple stuff, a museum in Montreal, and the Muslim Association of Canada. If you're a dude, you probably have exactly zero appreciation for this, but MAC is a huge brand for women. Owned by Estee Lauder, billion dollar revenues, sold in over 100 countries, Billboard #1 artist Nikki Minaj tie-ins, etc.etc. Heck, if you do a search for "Mac wiki", MAC Cosmetics is #1 there too. Warren -talk- 00:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Nice one. I did get Apple's Mac first in my incognito Google search results for "mac", but the cosmetics was second. Surprised me; I'll give you that. BUT, this page gets double the views of MAC Cosmetics [1]... I think that's more than good enough to qualify as primary topic. That said, I think there is a good argument to redirect MAC (all caps) to the cosmetics page. --В²C ☎ 01:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Another point... consider users who are searching for the cosmetics with "mac". Are they better served if they're taken, not surprisingly, to this page about Apple's Mac with a conspicuous hatnote link taking them directly to the page they're seeking? Or if they're taken to the unwieldy, lengthy dab page riddled with obscure and dubious uses of the term through which they have to wade in order to find a link to the article they are seeking? I think that's rather obvious. --В²C ☎ 01:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Macintosh sales

Should we mention that the years for the Macintosh sales are Fiscal Years? So the Mac sold 13.66 million units Fiscal Year 2010 (September 2009-September 2010), and not actually January-December 2010? Or is that implied? McDonaldsGuy (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

First line

Hi

What is this nonsense? It reads "This was the first (another one was ACTUALLY first, but it didnt sell as well)"

The SInclair WAS released to the mass market, the mass market just did not buy as many.

Quite simply put, one of those "facts" needs to be changed - the Sinclair WAS the first, the Mac was the first SUCCESSFUL mass sales machine.

The Mac was NOT the first to be released, so that should be changed - this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a Mac fanboi resource. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Pre-emptive multitasking

The article is shockingly wrong saying that preemptive multitasking was not possible on an 8MHz 68k CPU: for a fact, the Amiga OS had it working and commercialised since 1985. Please do some fact checking before relaying wrong information. Bohan (talk)

It didn't, and doesn't, say that. Please read. — Smuckola(talk) 23:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

"continued decline of the Macintosh user base"

This is misleading. As the numbers of Windows PC users grew, the percentage of Apple's user base by comparison with all other personal computers declined. This does not mean the Macintosh user base itself declined, as those numbers likely continued to grow. Misty MH (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Is there anything special about the Mac keyboard ?

There is a discussion at Talk:Keyboard technology#Apple keyboard technology as to whether the section about Apple keyboards in the article should be deleted since it is just a stub to attract attention but nothing has arrived. Does this mean that Mac keyboards are only cosmetically different from commodity keyboards? and that there is nothing of significance to say? If anyone can help, please do so at Keyboard technology#Apple keyboards. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The current version is macOS Monterey, first released on June 7, 2021 - Incorrect!

The current version of macOS is macOS Big Sur (11.5.2) not macOS Monterey. macOS Monterey is in Beta and is NOT the current OS or being used by the public for the Mac. It has NOT been released, as it is only in beta testing and Public beta testing.Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). the Official release of macOS Monterey is scheduled for sometime in the fall season of 2021. https://www.apple.com/macos/big-sur/. https://www.apple.com/macos/monterey-preview/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40b:381:1d00:3cb5:1414:8f5d:a020 (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 27 September 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: move Macintosh to Mac (computer). There is no consensus for a primary topic, so the disambiguation page will remain at the base title. (closed by non-admin page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

– There has been no move discussion since 2014. I think it's long overdue.

Since there are two components to this move, here's a breakdown of arguments for each:

1. Macintosh should be moved to Mac

The name Macintosh is defunct, and hasn't been used for almost two decades by either average people or reliable sources. No one today uses the term "Macintosh" to refer to Apple's computer lineup, except clearly SEO-spam content in Google search results, old content from the Macintosh era, and this Wikipedia page. The vast majority of people don't even know that "Macintosh" and "Mac" refer to the same thing. WP:COMMONNAME clearly requires a move at this point.

A common argument in previous move discussions was that "Mac" was short for "Macintosh"; which is simply no longer true when "Macintosh" is no longer used by anyone (not just Apple; customers and reliable sources too). I've searched the NYTimes: the only mentions of "Macintosh" in recent articles are in captions of photographs from the 80s, or articles discussing Apple's history (an example is here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/15/business/apple-california-manufacturing-history.html). Feel free to search site:nytimes.com "macintosh" to confirm this.

2. It should be moved to Mac as opposed to Mac (computer), and the disamb should be moved to Mac (disambiguation)

Though the Mac disambig page is quite full, none of the articles it links to are especially notable, save for MAC Cosmetics, which received 9k views in 30 days compared to 50k for Macintosh. Mackintosh (clothing) received 5k. This move would be fully in line with, for example, Rice, which receives 70k monthly views and takes the main page, while Rice University received 30k monthly views and is relegated to the disambig page. To be clear, my argument here is not founded on pageviews but mainly notability. Looking at Google Search results, there are about 11,400 results for the query "site:nytimes.com apple mac", compared to 2,930 results for "site:nytimes.com mac cosmetics" (note that articles on the Mac may not necessary contain the word "Apple", for example, in the NYTimes's product comparisons or buying recommendations; so the Apple results are likely incomplete). Looking at Google Trends, type "MAC Cosmetics" on one side, and MacBook (pick "topic", not "search term" for both for a fair comparison); the computer is clearly far more notable than the cosmetics brand: MacBook, only part of Apple's Mac lineup, is at 80 on Google Trends, compared to 17 for MAC Cosmetics.

When users type "Mac" into Wikipedia's search bar, they likely expect to land here; users who want to go to MAC Cosmetics are likely to type that full name in the search bar. Same for MAC address, which is always called by its full name, never just "MAC", to avoid the inevitable confusion that would ensue. While I fully agree that Apple should link to the fruit to avoid excessive commercialism, I don't feel this concern applies here, since the term Mac is so associated with the computer, and since both Mac (the computer) and MAC Cosmetics represent commercialism.

Though WP:NATURALDIS specifies that an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title may be used, I don't feel it applies here, as the Mac lineup is not at all "commonly called" Macintosh (these days, practically never, it's more of an easter egg if anything). That argument would work if the balance was 60/40 in favor of "Mac", as opposed to what seems more like 90/10 or more.

The new Mac page should have, at the top:

This page is about the computer lineup. For the cosmetics brand, see MAC Cosmetics. For other uses, see Mac (computer)/Archive 8 (disambiguation).
DFlhb (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Against moving to "Mac":

"Mac" as a singular noun has many uses, even if they are considered "obscure" on the disambiguation page, and additionally includes MAC as an acronym for many organisations, hence it's too ambiguous to simply use the Mac article link. I also do not think page views should be a primary metric for determining article links, as in that case Folklore (Taylor Swift album) would've been moved to Folklore (album) a long while ago.

Support moving to "Mac (computer)":

The current article name, "Macintosh" is a legacy name, and is rarely used by Apple now aside from the default hard drive name "Macintosh HD". Currently, googling "Macintosh" brings up results for 1980s-era Macintosh computers, particularly the original Macintosh 128K model. Hence, "Macintosh" would not be appropriate to refer to the current line of Mac computers, and should instead be moved to "Mac (computer)", as that is the official and commonly used name for this line of Apple computers.
P.S.: The last move discussion was in 2017, not 2014!

Theknine2 (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Indeed, I had missed the 2017 move request. I'd like to just clarify one thing: my argument for Mac as opposed to Mac (computer) mainly rests on notability concerns rather than Wikipedia pageviews; when reliable sources talk about the Mac, they rarely seem to feel a need to explain that they're referring to the computer. I'll update my move request above to incorporate a few counterarguments to what I've just seen in the 2017 move request discussion. DFlhb (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

against move. Nothing has changed here. Macintosh is and has always been the name of the line. - Denimadept (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I've updated my original proposal at the same time you posted your comment, so I don't know if you've seen the update; just wanted to let you know. My proposal now addresses arguments from the 2017 discussion that Theknine2 pointed out. I also think reliable sources are quite clear that Macintosh "is" not the name of the line, though it used to be. DFlhb (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
{@DFlhb: - I disagree that anything has changed. I'd support adding a redirect from "Mac (computer)" to this article, though. - Denimadept (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment (since I am the proposer): reading the lead of this article again, it's even clearer to me that naming this article Macintosh is a problem; the lead overwhelmingly focuses on the Macintosh's early history, and reads more like a History section than like a lead about a very popular and culturally relevant product lineup. The whole article deserves a bit of a revamp/refresh; but this article is overwhelmingly written as it if was about the historical Macintosh lineup, as opposed to the current Mac lineup (see the lead, the far greater detail for Macintosh vs Mac products in the history section, the images all highlighting old Macintosh products, etc). That, to me, proves that the title "Macintosh" leads to confusion, and is thought by people to refer to the old lineup far more than the current one. A split between Mac (the current) and Macintosh (the old) will likely be warranted in the future and will be easy to make; but for now, the main article about the current Mac lineup should definitely not be here. There is plenty of high-quality content on the 2006 version of this page, back when it was a featured article, that was deleted in order to avoid WP:UNDUE focus on the old lineup; my move proposal to Mac or Mac (computer) would allow us to reuse the Macintosh page for the old lineup, and rescue perfectly good content from the 2006 version of this article about the old lineup, old Macintosh software, and PowerPC-era Macintosh advertising. DFlhb (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    I have noticed many Apple-related articles with similar issues too, relating to tons of outdated content, insufficient recent content, and no clear prose. Several articles could also be helped with a merge or split, particularly those marked as Stub or Start. Theknine2 (talk) 06:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose no clear primary topic for the short term and the longer term provides natural disambiguation. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    This is the most common argument I see, yet I am baffled by it: WP:NATURALDIS clearly states However, do not use obscure or made-up names. "Macintosh" clearly qualifies as obscure. It cannot be used as natural disambiguation unless you can show evidence that its use in reliable sources is "common". Apple stopped calling any products "Macintosh" in 1999 (!), with the switch from Power Macintosh G3 to Power Mac G4. Reliable sources quickly shifted, since they consider "Macintosh" to refer to the old lineup, and "Mac" to refer to the current lineup; reliable sources do not treat these two terms as interchangeable (again, see the NYTimes story, where both "Macintosh" and "Mac" are used but never interchangeably; "Macintosh" is used exclusively to refer to the historical lineup [2]). If you talk to anyone younger than 30 or even 40 (that is, anyone who came of age after the name change) about a "macintosh", they would think you are referring to the coat; a disambiguation cannot rely on an obscure term, one that leads to confusion, or one that is practically never used. Reliable sources are extremely clear: "Mac" is the name of the lineup. "Macintosh" refers to a specific, defunct subset of the lineup; the terms are not interchangeable. DFlhb (talk) 09:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    I'm younger than 30 and I'd expect this title, I've heard just "Mac" but that's an abbreviation like calling "Coca-Cola" "Coke". Britannica uses the full name. I've used a "Mac" before but not for years and I distinctly remember the "Macintosh Hardrive" icon. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    Respectfully I also find this argument puzzling; it is not an abbreviation, it is the full name of the product line and has been for 23 years, in the press, in popular consciousness, and (least importantly) in marketing materials. It would be like having the iMac be at "Internet Mac" (since Apple did say that name was an abbreviation) when no reliable sources are calling it that. If Macintosh was the full name, both names would be used interchangeably, and "Macintosh" would be used almost exclusively today in high-brow publications and marketing materials, which is not the case; instead it's used exclusively to refer to a part of Apple's historic lineup (the one from 1985 to 1999, only 14 years, almost a full decade less than the 23 years the "Mac" name has been commonly used).
    The name AT&T, for example, is more recent (2005), yet the Wiki page it at AT&T, not American Telephone and Telegraph, which has been spun off into its own article (as I suggest doing here). WP:COMMON is absolutely "Mac", not "Macintosh", by such an enormous margin that the argument seems tenuous. DFlhb (talk) 09:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Why not move to Apple Mac, which is actually the common name? But no primary topic for Mac. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    Strong disagree that "Apple Mac" is the common name, for the same reason that "Apple iPhone" is not the common name (the iPhone is at iPhone and Apple iPhone is a redirect) or that "ThinkPad" is the common name, not "Lenovo ThinkPad".
    You may be right that "Mac" has no truly primary topic. What do you think of Mac (computer), which follows the most common disambiguation style on Wikipedia? DFlhb (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    Apple iPhone isn't the common name, I agree. Apple Mac, however, is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    Could you show evidence of that?
    I can't find any uses of that in WP:RS. I looked through Google News; BizzBuzz and Gizmochina do occasionally use "Apple Mac"; but they're not at all WP:RS. I've only found a few instances of "Apple Mac" ever in the WSJ, in headlines (see [3]; they almost exclusively say "Mac"), I'd say it's overwhelmingly uncommon and would violate the Style Manuals of practically all WP:RS. It also probably depends on country; I don't think anyone in France or Germany would ever say "Apple Mac", it just doesn't flow well in other languages; if anyone does use that term (again I haven't been able to find evidence), it's likely mostly Americans. So a move to Apple Mac likely wouldn't be feasible due to internationalization reasons (WP:WORLDWIDE). DFlhb (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    Apple Mac looks pretty common to me! And is perfect natural disambiguation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    Google Search results counts can be extremely unreliable depending on the query, since they're only estimates. They should only be used to compare two search queries, never to judge the prevalence of a term. When I click your link, it says "18,100,000 results". When I click page 10, it shows up as the last page, and the top now says "Page 10 of about 96 results". For the exact same query!
    WP:RS practically never use "Apple Mac", which I think is a better way to evaluate this. DFlhb (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    My point is merely that, contrary to your claim, the term is very commonly used; it wasn't meant to be any sort of comparison. The first results are from the Apple website itself. Then we have results from Amazon, Currys (a major British electronics retailer), Argos (likewise), AO (likewise), etc. All use Apple Mac. Which rather disproves your claim that reliable sources don't use it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    I don't believe that's the case; none of these websites refer to it as "Apple Mac"; the only 2 reason they show up are:
    1. HTML tags made for search engine optimization. For example, Apple would never, ever have "Apple Mac" anywhere on its website since it violate their brand guidelines; but it still shows up since search engines are good at crawling page hierarchies, therefore an Apple website category, and a Mac subcategory, would appear to a webcrawler as "Apple -> Mac" which would show up as "Apple Mac", despite the words never actually being together on the page.
    2. Stylistic choices for retailers. All the retailers you point out systematically put the manufacturer's name in article product pages, again for SEO reasons, and because most products don't actually have proper product names, just model numbers, e.g. "De'Longhi 800W Standard Microwave AM820C". That doesn't represent WP:COMMON in any way at all.
    Due to the above, the only way we can judge whether "Apple Mac" is common is through WP:RS media sources, like NYT or WaPo, "site:nytimes.com Mac" has 35,700 search results (even after page 26), whereas "site:nytimes.com Apple Mac" has 177 results and stops at page 18, and the vast majority of those mentions are "Apple's Mac", which doesn't count. DFlhb (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support move to Mac (computer). It's been due for a while actually. --170.48.19.254 (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support move to Mac (computer). Seems clear it should be called Mac based on modern sources but I don't believe the computer is the primary topic for Mac. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayonet-lightbulb (talk • contribs) 14:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to Mac (computer). Moving the article to the undisambiguated Mac isn't justified, but the current title is problematic, since, as OP noted, the "Macintosh" name hasn't been used in decades. 162 etc. (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, support alternative fails PT. So can't be PT. Simple enough to go with Mac (computer) instead. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to Mac (computer), as per WP:COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose This product has been around for almost 40 years; history is a large part of the article, as it should be. —GoldRingChip 22:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    The article's name doesn't dictate contents (we can talk as much or as little about Mac history regardless of the article name), and IMO historic usage is not part of the WP:CRITERIA for article names. DFlhb (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to Mac (computer) | MK17b | (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support move to Mac (computer). Who uses term Macintosh in 2022? Uni3993 (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Support move to Mac (computer) per nom. Mac is the name of the computer line now and Macintosh has been retired. I oppose having the Apple line at the base name because Mac could easily refer to MAC address. cookie monster 755 05:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose clearly not the primary topic. If anything, it would be the Big Mac, frequently just shortened to "Mac"; but it would be better to keep the disambiguation page as thte base name -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 07:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Move to Mac (computer). The move makes sense because nobody calls the computer "Macintosh" anymore and even Apple doesn't use that name anymore. However, whether or not this is the primary meaning of "Mac" is, in my opinion, debatable. Therefore, I believe the title Mac (computer) is appropriate. Aditoo17 [💬|✒️] 19:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
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.

Naming section

I'd support keeping the Naming section as it was; it doesn't really fit well in history; and the name is still relevant for the Mac. We should definitely add a sentence to it that explains the switch to the Mac name, though DFlhb (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

Passed. Rjjiii (talk) 06:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mac (computer)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ProcrastinatingReader (talk · contribs) 12:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Will try to review in the next few days.

Summary

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:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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:
    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:
    Free use rationales provided where required and seem appropriate.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    The caption for the 2013 Mac Pro image has a tag. I don't think a "by whom" tag is needed for captions - people are free to refer to the body for more info. The only question is whether the body adequetely supports the description of it having a reputation for being criticised.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Comments

I don't want to intrude on the review, but I wanted to point out some immediate things that jumped out at me when I saw this article in the review queue: you've got a disagreement between this article and linked articles (the Mac mini in the current lineup section is given as "4th gen: M1, 3rd gen: Intel Core i5, i7" but the Mac mini calls it the 5th and 4th generation), and sites like apple-history and Everymac are fan-run by people with no professional/expert qualifications and no fact-checking; they really shouldn't be used as sources unless you can justify them as reliable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Far from intruding, it's nice to see you here! I've seen you leave thoughtful comments in many past discussions since I joined, and that was just 2 months ago!
The Mac mini gens were just a typo on my part when trying to make the tables look nicer (from this to this), I've fixed it, and fully agreed on apple-history and Everymac. I've also removed LowEndMac for the same reason.
I'd like to justify replacing LowEndMac with a primary source (see this diff, though I later removed Fink): likely the only people who would be interested in clicking that citation are people with an interest in running BSD/Linux programs on Mac, or people who want to know how porting would work; and that old Apple Developer page is the only one I can think of that explains it both comprehensively for technical users, and approachably for newbies. DFlhb (talk) 02:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Footnote comments based on Special:Permalink/1121499474:

  • FN3 needs a site name (The Verge), as with FN57, 117
  • Are the following reliable sources? Kaomso (FN15), Launch Tomorrow (FN26), cultofmac (FN27, 62), lowendmac (FN28), everymac (FN37), 512 pixels (FN47, 80), loopinsight.com (FN61), operating-system.org (FN146), MacSales (FN142), TheNextWeb (FN140)

Seems like the article is largely based on web sources, many of them Apple-focused news sites (9to5mac, macworld, etc). At this point, Apple's history must be well covered in literature, so it's slightly surprising to see very few books etc cited? (where they are cited, they seem to be for very short amounts of content) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Will go off and look for books on Apple's history, and I'll report back in; thanks very much for pointing this out. Though please keep the citations as-is until I can replace them; that'll make my job easier. DFlhb (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Ok, I checked: LowEndMac, LoopInsight, Cult of Mac, and 512 Pixels are good; the people behind them have either been published in more credible outlets, or worked for them, or these sites have been cited by reliable Apple blogs as credible. The Mac has long had a blogosphere that's quite credible and well-established, which I admit is pretty unique. We should replace them if we find better sources; but they should be ok. And the other sources you mention should be replaced. And I'm still looking through the books I have; several of them only have digital page numbers, not physical, so that'll be a bit of a challenge. DFlhb (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Will look into book citations (Google Books to the rescue!). I'll also try to focus less on Apple-centric web sources, where possible. Theknine2 (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Side note about the citations: IABot has been down for the past month so I am not able to add any archived versions of citation links at the moment. Theknine2 (talk) 06:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I was wondering if it was just me. DFlhb (talk) 06:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I've added a bunch of book citations, and feel that the Mac Pro caption problem has been resolved. Do note, I likely won't have much time this weekend or next week for anything too time-consuming, but I'll do my best to help out. DFlhb (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
How are you doing User:ProcrastinatingReader? DFlhb (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I paused reviewing while you mentioned you both were checking books, in case of changes to the article. Assuming that's complete, will continue looking through... ProcSock (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Overall, prose is nice and the article is a solid summary of the Mac. Initial comments follow:

  • In 1994, Apple's market share fell to 8.5% compared to market leader Compaq's 10.3% -- fell from? Or could be worth mentioning peak market share earlier in the section. (on that note, probably doesn't hurt to mention its current market share)
    • Addressed your point. Also reworded the end of that paragraph so it's more detailed, and addresses readers' hypothetical objection of "wait, how did they decline if the PowerPC was so initally successful?". I'm frankly quite happy with how much better this pasage is now. Current market share is mentioned in § Marketing; I think it would be confusing to put today's market share alongside 1997 stuff. DFlhb (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
  • There are a few comments of it being expensive/cheap and a couple times an explicit price is mentioned. It may be nice to see this in context. How were these Macs priced with competitors?
    • I addressed this by steer away from mentioning prices as much as possible, since it's a little messy, with the 1997 USD being worth quite a different amount from today, and with the whole can of worms of: "which other companies' products should we compare Macintoshes to? Which Macintoshes should be compared, since there were dozens and dozens of models?" and stuff like that. We now only mention "Macintosh clones were cannibalizing the sales of Apple's higher-margin machines." I tried finding good numbers on that but didn't find anything solid enough. DFlhb (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
  • The iMac was a critical and commercial success, with Apple selling 800,000 units in 139 days, resulting in an annual profit of US$309 million in 1998, Apple's first profitable year since 1995 -- resulting in -> contributing to? Reads slightly confusing to me otherwise, as 139 days isn't a year, so the iMac can't (alone) result in that annual profit.
  • However, the iMac's bundled USB Mouse received criticism for its non-traditional circular "hockey puck" shape -- anything more specific on the criticism of the product? Was the mouse bad/awkward to use? Or did people just not like the design?
    • Yeah, it was pilloried. Users found it hard to click with precision due to the awkward grip. Here are two articles [4][5]. I also recall that Steve Jobs invited John Carmack to the stage of an Apple keynote to demo Quake, and he completely trashed the mouse for lacking a right-button. I was shocked Steve even said the customary "Thanks John" when he retook the stage (he did, but the video cuts off before that). [6]
Anyhoo, I changed "bundled USB Mouse" to "bundled "hockey puck" mouse". That's its common name. And users may not notice the "Mouse" capitalization, and may not click on the link, expecting that it'll just lead to a generic article on all USB mice; I want to make it clear that the link leads to Apple's mouse. I changed the rest to: "was universally panned for being awkward to hold, imprecise to use, and lacking a right-click button", which is more precise. DFlhb (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
  • More than 140,000 preorders were placed for the iBook before it began shipping in September 1999,[48] and was the best selling portable computer in the U.S during the fourth quarter of 1999 "and it was the"? Although you may want to vary the sentence structure (compare to prev sentence), of either this or the preceding one. Probably rephrasing the preceding one is better.
  • while also not including a monitor -- unclear relevance? esp as the Power Mac G4 also didn't include a monitor. Did other Apple products at the time include monitors, or was it an industry standard to include one?
    • Agree it's undue. The Cube was well known for developing cracks (and today, is notorious for it), so I took the liberty of doing a bolder edit here too: "It received acclaim for its innovative design, but the machine was expensive and non-expandable, and its translucent case was prone to developing cracks. It was discontinued a year later." DFlhb (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
  • These materials are billed as environmentally friendly tense?
    • I found better sourcing (replaced primary with secondary), and changed it to the following: "In October 2008, the second-generation MacBook Pro switched to a more recyclable "unibody" aluminum and glass enclosure, and eliminated several toxic chemicals, representing an early step in Apple's ongoing push for environmental friendliness." DFlhb (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Design chief Jony Ive guided products towards a minimalist and simple feel,[84] including the elimination of replaceable batteries in notebooks.[85] reword and could perhaps expand on his other design decisions, incl expanding on the minimalist design theme and its reception.
    • I actually removed that bit during the copyedit, since I thought it looked out of place. But I agree with you. Brought it back, but in the 2012-2016 section where it fits better (since that's where he started getting criticized) and expanded on it. DFlhb (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
  • the keyboard can only be serviced at an Apple Store or authorized service center tense
    • Also substantially copyedited, and changed this sentence to: "Due to the Butterfly keyboard being riveted into the laptop's case, it could only be serviced at an Apple Store or authorized service center." DFlhb (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
  • macOS features the Aqua user interface, which has been described as "highly intuitive" by who? Is there anything else to say about the interface?
    • Yeah, I don't think that should have been included, it's just completely subjective, even if we attribute it in text. I've replaced it with more objective stuff and neutra info. DFlhb (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Prose could be sharper and sentence structure more varied in the 'hardware' and 'software' sections.
  • I'd expand the software sub-section a bit, and perhaps hardware one also. Maybe a note of what it succeeded (Mac OS), and a brief summary of major versions. It's not the article for macOS, of course, but the OS is a big part of Macs so it makes sense to give it a bit more coverage. I think a couple of decent-length paragraphs can be written about it here.

GPT-assisted copyedit, and structure improvement idea

I'm currenly working on making I've made wide-ranging improvements to the flow & writing of this article, inspired by User:DFlhb/Mac (GPT), a fun experiment. In addition to copyedits, I also made (or am making, some aren't done yet) several substantial content changes, to either clarify things (the reasons for Intel transition), add noteworthy detail (the benefits of Apple choosing NeXT; the quality control issues faced in the 90s, the significance of the Back to the Mac effort), or remove excessive detail (watercooled Power Macs, updates to Boot Camp). Sourcing has also been improved. Not all of these edits are submitted yet; I'll update this post to say when I'm done.

User:ProcSock, sorry for not thinking of these changes before you did your first-pass review. But I think these are substantial improvements, and hopefully we'll have a kick-ass Good Article! I'll obviously also continue working on the outstanding issues you already pointed out above. Got quite a few ideas for both the software and hardware sections. Done DFlhb (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2022 (UTC); edited to remove the middle paragraph; no longer think that was a good proposal 05:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: Any updates on this GAN? When can other expect a re-review? Z1720 (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, very sorry for delay with re-reviewing this... Been quite busy recently so haven't had sustained time to dedicate to wiki-stuff. If possible another reviewer would be better / make things faster, and I'm happy with them taking this review off my hands. Otherwise, I'll try to review as available, but that may be a couple of weeks... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Second review

Changes seem substantial enough to basically re-review (diff). So resetting the checklist above. Comments:

Lead

  • Macs are known for their ease of use and minimalist designs, and are popular among students, creative professionals, and software engineers. source? And why these groups in particular?
  • I removed it, due to a dilemma: sources were making these statements, but it was in passing, and I think such an absolute statement requires more rigorous/significant sourcing. I think that's everything addressed so far, ProcrastinatingReader, ball's back in your court. And thanks again for the re-review. DFlhb (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

History

  • Reflected Jobs' interest in typography, it came bundled with a variety of fonts. ce needed. Also, is there anything interesting to say about the typography, esp compared to competing products, other than it just coming with lots of fonts? (besides, was this even unusual then?)
  • According to the sources, it was unusual for a personal computer at the time; or at least, personal computers that people could afford. DFlhb (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Sales initially met projections, but then sputtered as customers were polarized by its groundbreaking interface finding this hard to reconcile w/ footnote... Who were these 'customers'? Sounds like Apple made a computer targeted at the mass market, but the main customerbase was still people who liked terminal prompts? If so, worth clarifying, and if not, same.
  • I've checked, and you're right. The "polarization" seems to have been mostly among a few tech reviewers, but among customers, the two main problems were performance and lack of applications. I've removed this altogether. DFlhb (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
  • and Jobs became publicly embroiled with CEO John Sculley; Jobs left to found NeXT maybe don't put in separate clause, eg "and Jobs left Apple [to found NeXT] after becoming publicly embroiled with CEO John Sculley", ie focusing that part on him leaving (along with other developers). Up to you.
  • one of the few remaining members of the Macintosh team few remaining, period (ie team was downscaled), or one of the few who was also in the original Mac team?
  • However, this unwillingness to compromise on features I'm confused how made the Mac more open and expandable to appeal to tech enthusiasts and make inroads in the enterprise market is an "unwillingness to compromise on features"? clarification needed?
  • Yeah, that was unclear. Basically, he wanted the Mac to be bling-ed out with features, and let engineers loose to add whatever cool thing they wanted (like a lead acid battery on a laptop, a screen so high resolution that the manufacturing tolerance was "less than 6 dead pixels", a trackball that could be removed and slotted in to either the left or right of the laptop, etc). It's "unwillingness to compromise" as in "no-compromise" (which was how Apple marketed the Portable). Copyedited. DFlhb (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
  • flooded the market with Mac models targeting every niche eg? and/or what niches?
  • I've made it more precise. The sources provide a few examples, but they'd require a fair bit of contextualization and I don't think they're worth it. DFlhb (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Green tickY Current lineup

Green tickY Software

Response

@ProcrastinatingReader: My apologies for only seeing this a month late; my watchlist is very crowded, and I didn't see this page. Will respond imminently; this re-review is much appreciated! DFlhb (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Theknine2: ICYMI DFlhb (talk) 23:26, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Status query

ProcrastinatingReader, DFlhb, what is the status of this review? It has been open for over five months, and there haven't been any significant edits yet this month. Has everything necessary been done, or is there a lot still left to be accomplished? BlueMoonset (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I think all concerns so far from the 2nd review have been addressed; ProcRead is probably busy. But part of the delay was utterly my fault, for which I apologize to all (I rewrote whole sections based on book sources to address sourcing concerns in the 1st review, thus quite unfairly requiring ProcRead to do a 2nd review, and I didn't notice the 2nd review for a month; I now check the page daily to make sure that doesn't reoccur). This was my first GAN, and there's many things I wish I'd done differently. I'm much indebted to ProcRead for their patience; there's zero deadline as far as I'm concerned. DFlhb (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset and DFlhb: My bad really - I haven't been too active recently due to RL time constraints, which I didn't expect when I originally took the review.
I think it is a pretty good article, and I suspect it's either at GA standard currently or not much is left to get there. I don't know which route will be faster though: me being able to complete the review, or cancelling this and putting it back in queue / having someone else review it (either from scratch or finishing up the review I started). I'm perfectly happy with the latter though (with someone taking the review over), and do suspect it will be faster if someone doesn't mind. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
ProcrastinatingReader, DFlhb, I've just set the review status to 2nd opinion, in the hopes that a new reviewer will step forward. If no one shows up, then should ProcrastinatingReader have more available time in subsequent months, they could complete the review if no one else has. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Works for me! DFlhb (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi DFlhb, I'll take a look at this over the next week or so. Do you have anywhere that you are looking for input or guidance specifically? If so, let me know.Rjjiii (talk) 05:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for taking up the review, Rjjiii. I don't know that there's any area that needs specific attention; I guess it's up to you. DFlhb (talk) 05:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Checking sources:

  1. Linzmayer 2004, pp. 85–88, 92–94Wozniak plane crash: p. 15. Almost verifies the content. The 85-88 page range says that Raskin's initial project was meant to use an interface more similar to a word processor crossed with a command line (which is kind of how some his later projects like the Canon Cat work. P. 86 says "that may not sound much like the Mac as we know it". It explains how Jobs brought ideas from XEROX Parc to Lisa to Mac. I think that , with the Lisa's graphical interface doesn't quite fit on that sentence. It would probably make the most sense to put in a line about the Xerox/Lisa connection at the end of the paragraph after Jobs taking control so that it can be placed in context.
  2. Levy 2000, pp. 90–101, 135–138: Again this almost verifies the content. It does say the Xerox didn't use drag and drop, but Levy doesn't say that double-click or menu bars are not present in Xerox software: The word processing program at Xerox had used double-clicks to select words, but the Lisa group used that function for other things as well, and Take the menu bar, that row of words that rests on the white space at the top of every Macintosh application. If you move the cursor over one of the words, like FILE, EDIT, FONT, or SPECIAL, you get Apple's successor to Xerox PARC's pop-up menu-the pull-down menu. This drops like a window shade, with a list of words representing a command that will be enacted when the cursor finds its way over the proper word. Levy's point seems to be that the Apple software was much more intuitive and than the Xerox software: A look at the evolution of the Lisa interface, however, shows that much more was involved than lifting a Trinitron from Xerox's living room. With the discipline of the marketplace looming over them, Lisa's engineers realized that PARC's ideas had to be stripped down and rebuilt to more demanding specifications. By the time Tesler arrived in mid-1980, Apple already had clarified some of PARC's ideas, making them friendlier to novice users. One of the primary differences was the implementation of something called direct manipulation-the ability to reach into cyberspace and get things done without any mediation. In the PARC world, things mostly got done by moving the cursor over selections on pop-up menus. With Lisa, however, you could manipulate almost anything on the screen, often without reverting to the middleman of menus Rather that the vague "far beyond" and listing features, maybe it would make more sense to use a specific feature (like drag-and-drop) as example of progress or fundamental differences or whatever?
  3. Sandberg-Diment 1984, p. C3.: Verified. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/technology/1984Jan24_Mac.pdf presages a revolution [...] in personal computing. A prose consideration: I'd either use more of the quote or none of it (described as revolutionary by the New York Times.) as the current wording reads awkward.
  4. "Steve Jobs resigns from Apple, Cook becomes CEO". Reuters. August 24, 2011. Archived from the original on August 27, 2012. Retrieved October 9, 2022. Verified, reliable source.
  5. 2012–present: Tim Cook era: First paragraph verified by 4 sources. The arrangement of the sources though is confusing. All 4 sources collectively verify this paragraph, but the arrangement is confusing. For example, Honan, Mat (October 12, 2011). "iCloud Is a Bigger Deal Than You Think: It's the Future of Computing". Gizmodo. Archived from the original on February 10, 2023. Retrieved February 10, 2023. does not verify Tim Cook, first, or keynote from the preceding sentence; the end of paragraph sources do that. Why not move this stray source to the end of the paragraph so that it's clear that all 3 sources together verify it? That's a nitpick though; it passes.
  • No plagiarism.
  • No copyvio.
  • Quotes are in quote marks with citations.

Summary: Check those early bits out in the 1979–1996: "Macintosh" era that I mentioned above and let me know how you handle it. Since the only problems were in that section, I'll probably peek into at least one more citation there. Outside of that section the article passes Criteria 2. Rjjiii (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  1. Indeed. Made it more precise.
  2. Good catch. Addressed.
  3. Agree and done; I don't like when single words are quoted, gives a scare quotes feel.
  4. Good.
  5. I assume I meant to add another cite there, and forgot. I've added Mickle 2022 instead of grouping the citations, since the later links talk about a different keynote.
DFlhb (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Alright checking two more:
  1. Levy 2000, pp. 201–203. Yes, Sculley forces out Jobs.
  2. Linzmayer 2004, pp. 67–68. Yes. Not an issue but a note for any future editors, the "American" context is something overall in this section of the book not in this specific page ranges.
  3. Levy 2000, pp. 239–247. Yes. Not a GA concern, but I thought it was interesting that Alan Kay himself pitched HyperCard to Sculley and got Atkinson to stay on at Apple.
Criteria 2 passes, Rjjiii (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Checking images

  • File:M2 Macbook Air Starlight model.jpg: Free image, icons are censored to be safe.
  • File:Steve Jobs and Macintosh computer, January 1984, by Bernard Gotfryd - edited.jpg: Public domain, from US government.
  • File:Powerbook 100 pose.jpg: free image, multiple free licenses.
  • File:IMac colorful internet lowres.png: fair use with plausible rationale.
  • File:IBook G3 M6497 J.jpg: free image, multiple free licenses.
  • File:PowerBook G4 12-fr.jpg: free image, multiple free licenses.
  • File:IMac G4 and keyboard.jpg: CC licensed from Flickr.
  • The multiple image template to avoid stacking is nice.
  • File:Steve Jobs with MacBook Air 2.jpg: confirmed free on Commons.
  • File:New Mac Pro (12093123884).jpg: CC licensed from Flickr.
  • File:MacBook Pro Retina 001.jpg:CC licensed from photographer.
  • File:M1 iMac Green model.jpg: censored to prevent ip issues.
  • File:Ad apple 1984.jpg: the ad is very relevant to this article. This has a strong fair use rationale.
  • File:Mac Pro 2019 on wheels.jpg: CC licensed from photographer.
  • File:MacOS Ventura Desktop.png: I'm not going to object to this for the GA review. On copyright grounds this is 100% fair use in the US. Wikipedia's hosting policy is rather strict on non-free image usage, so just as a heads up this will likely be removed at some point.

Summary: This passes criteria six by a good ways.Rjjiii (talk) 06:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Last point is fair. I'll leave it for now, and after the GA is over, I'll add prose commenting on the Mac's UI idiosyncracies (menu bar and dock, "app model" vs "window model" unlike Windows and Linux, HIG guidelines, "Mac look and feel" some users demand of native third-party apps) which was the point the image was supposed to make. Maybe that'll be enough to strengthen the NFU rationale, maybe not; I'll request extra scrutiny on that when I bring it to FA, and won't fight hard to keep the pic. DFlhb (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't have an issue with it and it's fine for GA. I've just noticed that kind of thing frequently gets deleted.Rjjiii (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Criteria 3, 4, and 5

These all pass. No edit wars. No NPOV violations. Covers the main aspects. Stays on topic. I'll do Criteria 1 sometime soon.Rjjiii (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Criteria 1: prose and layout

Confusing language:

  • which brought the Mac to the same ARM architecture as iOS devices.
  • made of translucent plastic in "Bondi blue" color. The image shows 5 colors. Did it come in only one color at first? Not clear from the article text.
  • , maintaining a high degree of control over the end-product. This seems to anticipate a criticism about Apple's reliance on Asian manufacturing or maybe Foxconn specifically. If that's what it's getting at, either it should be omitted or the criticism should be put into context.
  • Over the years, Mac OS X was rebranded to OS X, and is now known as macOS. It was rebranded twice?

Grammar errors:

  • strengths lied lay
  • an all-in-one computer which was that was
  • trend-setter trendsetter (I think?)
  • It was best selling laptop in the U.S. during the fourth quarter of 1999.

Layout:

The "Current Mac laptop and desktop computers" is really wonky. If you do take this to FA status, you should check out Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables, but that's not required for GA listing.

I think it just barely slips by the GA criteria's subset of the manual of style. The lists sections says Embedded lists are lists used within articles that supplement the article's prose content. They are included in the text-proper or appended, and may be in table format. which definitely covers the "Mac models in production" but the one with the images is more using the table for layout than as a table. And MOS:PARA talks about bulleted lists Bullet points should not be used in the lead of an article, and should be used in the body only to break up a mass of text, particularly if the topic requires significant effort to comprehend.

Even though I had comments here, Criteria 1 passes. Rjjiii (talk) 07:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

DFlhb and Theknine2, I did a few copyedits[7] and checked a few more sources. Double check my edits and I'll pass this. Are you doing a "Did You Know" entry? It looks like this article was never posted there and it's been over a year since it was on the main page, so it should be elible. Rjjiii (talk) 01:41, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Addressed first ("ARM processor architecture" should be clearer) and second one (iMac colours now mentioned, citation page range extended to support this addition). The "high degree of control" referred to Apple being an extremely demanding client for manufacturers and suppliers, in terms of manufacturing tolerances, methods and tools used, quantities, deadlines, etc. (covered by Mickle 2022). When I figure out a concise and clear way to mention that, I'll add it.
Using tables for layout is an accessibility issue so I've replaced the current models table with an image gallery. Still not supported by prose (though that's no better or worse than it was) which I'll need to add later. I'll look for secondary-source commentary, analysis and criticism on the lineup in-and-of-itself. There should be stuff to say here, already have a few ideas.
I don't do DYKs because I never had any interest in them as a reader. Theknine2 is very welcome to nominate it though.
Thanks for the copyedits, and thanks again for your review. DFlhb (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
A few last positive comments as I close this out. The edits look good, thanks for going above and beyond here. Regarding ""high degree of control", I think I get what you mean and feel free to add that content back in; I just found the previous wording confusing. Glad you've already got the source to work from.
The gallery works much better than the table on NVDA and mobile.
That makes sense; I'll be sure to leave a message on Theknine2's talk page about DYK then.
And congrats! Rjjiii (talk) 06:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
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.

Fixing redirects

I'd like to be able to move History of the Macintosh to Macintosh, which currently redirects to this page. But tons of pages currently link to Macintosh. I'd appreciate if someone here who has AutoWikiBrowser could just change all those links to point directly to this article. DFlhb (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that should be moved. It creates more of a clean break that there ever actually was between the classic Macintosh line and modern Macs. In fact, I'd say the other article is mistaken in its scoping of using Jobs' return as the break point. The real significant break point was the transition from Classic Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X (and subsequent revisions). That, more than new candy-colored cases, was the point where the line fundamentally changed. In other words, it's the change in the software that irrevocably altered the platform, not the hardware. oknazevad (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing

"[QUERY]" site:arstechnica.com OR site:cnet.com OR site:theregister.com OR site:nytimes.com OR site:venturebeat.com OR site:theverge.com OR site:wired.com -viewtopic

The above search query is a good way to find articles from reliable sources; that helps compensate about the lack of books covering some periods of Apple's history, like the 2005-2011 period. Make sure to play around with the search query's time range so you get relevant reuslts. The -viewtopic at the end helps filter out forum results. DFlhb (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I discovered practically all the books we're using to source this are available for free on archive.org DFlhb (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mac_(computer)/Archive_8&oldid=1159083962"