Talk:MacBook (2006–2012)

Audio capabilities

There is no mention of audio at all in this article, how come? What are the audio capabilities of these computers, is there any difference between models?

All MacBook models have a 3.5mm minijack audio out, my MacBook2,1 also has a 3.5 mm audio in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.49.206.217 (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The MacBook 5.1 (The aluminium Unibody Model released 14 october 2008) has also a Combined optical digital input/analog line in (minijack) and a Combined optical digital output/analog line out (minijack) according to the official specifications from Apple which can be found here: http://support.apple.com/kb/SP500 . I don't know the audio capabilities of the earlier or later MacBook models. Pineapple216 (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

No FireWire discuss

When you have large number of "anonymous opinions" commenting on an item and greatly contradicting the professional review scores, it has ramifications. Political "exit polls" are not vastly different from this, but used by professional news organizations all the time. I note there is a mention of the inferior quality of the LCD monitor.
So, the question is not that this subject be added, but what is correct wiki protocol. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, and the correct Wikipedia protocol is verifiability backed up by reliable sources. Anonymous comments are not reliable sources. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Peter Cohen wrote "...but I suspect most people will make the transition, and will ultimately find that they’re not missing much by making the switch." I think that is not a proper Wiki quote for a technical subject becuase he is making an assumption, and since when are assumptions acceptable to use? Someone could just as well predict Apple will soon change the design and put FW back in to MacBooks, and even if a true rumor, so also not appropriate. His comment "is certainly disappointing and will surely be felt for a while by Mac users who had invested in peripherals that use the interface" would be acceptable factual entry, supported by other authors and amateur reviewers. Also acceptable would be something that would question the usefulness of FW since it is not used by all. I may change it later. Cheers --Flightsoffancy (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Cohen saying "is certainly disappointing" is just as much his opinion as "will ultimately find that they’re not missing much". Sorry no offence but, if you can't see that, please don't edit the article. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

"I suspect most people will ... and will ultimately find" sounds like a sweeping generalization fallacy, and makes a big assumption that purchasers will be "making the switch". Peters comment near the beginning "The absence of FireWire ports is certainly an inconvenience for some users. But it shouldn’t be considered a deal-breaker for most of us, anyway." is more matter of fact and does not make any assumptions. Gregg Keizer's (Computerworld) article of same time reports how the lack of the port will effect some users, and includes field reports.

, while Gregg Keizer of Computerworld/Infoworld took note of user reactions. http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/10/17/Apple_users_rage_over_missing_FireWire_1.html?source=rss&url=http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/10/17/Apple_users_rage_over_missing_FireWire_1.html Flightsoffancy (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous forum postings are not reliable sources. Articles that report the content of anonymous forum postings are not reliable sources.

I still disagree with your assertion that one quote is acceptable, while another quote from exactly the same article is not, but I don't care enough to change it. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Flight in his most recent post that the quote was essentially opinion, however, as in court, opinion is allowed by people with certain knowledge, ie 'experts'. If I wrote an article and made such assertions I would surely hope people would have the sense to not quote me, however Peter from Macworld in a published article is another scenario altogether. I think the current quote makes the point regardless, although it's added some ambiguity.

I am curious though as to how the current quote is any less a statement of opinion (my notes in italics):

"The absence of FireWire ports is certainly an inconvenience (Question: How is it an inconvenience and why? Answer: the original quote spoke about people buying firewire peripherals, but this is no longer in the article thus the article is now unclear) for some users (Question: what users? Answer: Possibly video camera users? Not sure. It's unclear). But it shouldn’t be considered a deal-breaker for most of us, anyway. (Comment: This sentence is as much opinion as the original quote you had issue with, however again his opinion is likely to be good enough for inclusion. My query for you Flight is how this satisfies your initial issue with his opinion?)"Nja247 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Nja, great comment and challenge, and I admit a certain emotional reaction to the first quote.

Peters concluding quote: "FireWire’s absence is certainly disappointing and will surely be felt for a while by Mac users who had invested in peripherals that use the interface, but I suspect most people will make the transition, and will ultimately find that they’re not missing much by making the switch." FW is a somewhat well known port, with extensive wiki page, so why does it require detailed explanation? Besides that, people who do have FW peripherals are not the only who will suffer, those who need TargetDiskMode will also suffer, but the second part suggests that most people will blindly accept the change and accept an inferior connection method, (as expressed by many others), and that comment sounds like a sweeping generalization fallacy, and a suggestion that FW has no reason on a low end laptop.

Peters earlier quote: "The absence of FireWire ports is certainly an inconvenience for some users. But it shouldn’t be considered a deal-breaker for most of us, anyway." It is obvious that not everyone needs the FW port, so I see no issue with that part, and that leads to the second part and again, a number of people do not have use for FW, so is not a factor in buying it. (improper grammar aside  ;)

I did want to add something about reaction to it, but could not find something that would work. I added the Gregg Keizer post here, but seemed too one sided to be fair for the article. AlistairMcMillan, many of Gregg's quotes seem to be him doing a reporters job, going around and asking people. (did not see I was not logged in) --Flightsoffancy (talk) 04:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that him assuming 'most people' (here I ask who, and how does he know) FW will not be missed is likely rubbish. Saying that FW is somewhat well known may be true, but to be honest I personally know many people who have computers with it that have no clue what it's about. I know exactly what it is, though honestly I have never used it in the close to 10 years it's been available to me on various computers! I suppose that's irrelevant, but I am beginning to wonder what I've been missing out on.

Anyhow I am glad for your post as I now better understand your issue and tend to agree. I'd still like to address the ambiguities I raised above. I'd appreciate your help if possible, and I'll be looking around later this week for reactions that would be worthy of inclusion if they'd be helpful to the article. Cheers and Happy New Year's Eve. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur not everyone knows what FW is, thus the somewhat well known part in my comment, but for sure those who do know it, and especially use it, this is a huge deal. Unlike the MacBook Air and its very niche use (closer to a netbook), the loss of FW represents a major reversal of a trend started in 2000 with the PowerBook G3 "Pismo" (after the desktops gained FW) and the ability to use TDM, something long done with SCSI on older PowerBook's. To the model it not a major item, but to the Apple product line future as a whole it has large ramifications. So at the very least it is a noteworthy item in the Wiki. --Flightsoffancy (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, again though some ambiguities exist now as I raised above. I'll look into sorting them out I suppose in due course. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Apple Model Navigation

Who wrote that directly transcluded navigation box at the bottom of the page? Is it necessary? Should it be a template/what is trying to be accomplished? ~ Paul^T+/_C 23:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't see how it's something to worry over, but if interested this may be of some use to you. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Naming convention

Should this article observe Apple's apparent naming convention when referring to its products, to exclude "the" from subjects, such as "MacBook is made of Aluminum" or "Many people use MacBook for video editing"? I believe the article for iPhone uses this naming convention. Jagun^Talk_Contribs 02:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Could do, but then again this is an encyclopaedia -- not Apple. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

In general I am a supporter of giving companies some extra leeway with names that deliberately break English rules (AMD Live!, eBay), but dropping the "the" seems to break a fundamental rule in a confusing way for no benefit whatsoever. I see no reason to replicate such a horrible practice, and I have never seen anyone outside Apple did so. iPhone appears to consistently refer to the device as "the iPhone". — Aluvus t/c 08:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

So here's a fun language question: Why do we expect "The" in front of iPhone but not Mac OS X? Warren -talk- 11:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Because we treat iPhones as a generic class of unique objects (I opened the magazine and turned on the iPhone), but handle OS X and other software as the proper name of a single thing (I opened Car and Driver and booted OS X). This latter use is maybe something of a hack, since there may be lots of copies of that "single thing", but it is what English speakers have settled on when refering to many forms of media. You might say something about "my copy of OS X", but you would get confused looks if you talked about "my copy of iPhone", much as if you had described reading "the Car and Driver" or, yes, using "the Google". And of course there are exceptions ("the Bible"). The subtleties of this (somewhat arbitrary, but generally well-defined) distinction often stymie ESL speakers, but then Apple's usage is so problematic that even Apple's marketing isn't consistent; TV ads describe "the iPhone 3G", and this page uses both forms in the same paragraph. — Aluvus t/c 12:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

OK Thanks. I was mistaken about the iPhone article. Let's keep this article the same way. 01:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The Oct 14 2008 macbook under Polycarbonate is actually the Aluminum

How odd, if I look up the model number listed under the 'newest' polycarbonate, MB466LL/A, I get the 2.0ghz Macbook Al instead. There was no Polycarbonate released on Oct 14, 2008, however I believe it was still available for purchase. --TIB (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Macbook White versus Aluminum Memory Speed

This needs to be clarified and added. I'm not wikiliterate enough to do it without screwing the article up. The article states DDR2, but the Apple site says DDR3 now, and I think the White one has 667 and the aluminum the 1000 or something MHz. Thanks see http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/macbook

Well I checked it out mate, and it seems the article is correct. The current White model uses 1066 MHz for the CPU, but 667 MHz DDR 2 for memory (according to apple here). And the alum is 1066 MHz for both, and uses DDR 3 (which is what the article says already). If I'm missing the issue please let me know. Cheers. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

WHOOPS I WAS WRONG, i thought the white macbook graph was reflecting both macbooks...sorry!!!!!!

I just edited this to add that you can put DDR2 800 in the MacBook white - I have both systems. The difference between the White and Alu MacBooks in this area is that the Alu one takes DDR3 RAM, and the White one takes DDR2 RAM. They share the same NVidia MCP79 controller, which supports either DDR3 at 1066 Mhz or DDR2 at 800 Mhz. DDR2 800 is supported by Mac OS, and this works perfectly in a white MacBook (2.0, the 2.13 one comes with DDR2 800 RAM anyway). If anyone disputes this, here's the doc on the NVidia website if a reference is needed: MCP79 Spec. SmackEater (talk) 15:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Macbook Model numbers confusion

I have a white MacBook with the model designation A1181 stamped into its underside, but there is no mention of this model in the article. If this is an omission, FYI. If not, and there is a different model number convention being used in the article in contrast with what Apple's using, could someone explain how the MB designations in the article translate to the designations on the body of the MacBook? IvyGold (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

What you're speaking of is the part number, not model number. Nja²⁴⁷ 11:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Still, something's not adding up. Here's a PC Review article reviewing an "Apple Macbook A1181": http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/product/54394/review/macbook_a1181.html Thank you for your response, but I'm still confused. Is the reviewer similarly mistaken? Regardless, I'm hitting a genius bar this week and will find out what's going on. Thank you for your time, though -- seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IvyGold (talk • contribs) 06:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I've still got the box from mine and here's what it says:

• Part No: MB881X/A
• Serial No: ***********
• Model No: A1181

System Profiler reports the Model Identifier as Macbook 5,2 (sudo dmidecode -s system-product-name in Linux) which seems to be an easy way of identifying them (except in Windows). 150.101.52.48 (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A-Class

I would like to nominate this article for A-Class. I need two supports from two uninvolved editors. - Sk8er5000 (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominated by: Sk8er5000 (talk) 05:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Support (1): — neuro^{(talk)(review)}, are lowendmac.com and faqintosh.com reliable, though (I am genuinely asking, not saying they aren't)? — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 14:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Support (2): a bit late, but better than never. Will promote. Airplaneman ✈ 02:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider Airplaneman uninvolved. He's heavily involved with Macintosh articles. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 03:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I think what "uninvolved" means in this instance is involvement in improving the specific article. Airplaneman ✈ 03:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Screen colors

I had a chat with an online Apple expert (transcript here) and she said that the MacBook is only capable of displaying 6 bits per channel, which is 262,144 colors, less than the "millions of colors" stated on the MacBook specs page. Kevin chen2003 (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately that would be original research to include that information.--Terrillja _talk 00:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

There are other people who have noticed this:

http://peewaiweb.free.fr/ http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2008/03/apple-quietly-settles-lawsuit-over-dithered-laptop-displays.ars http://www.raoulpop.com/2008/apple-still-not-transparent-about-its-hardware-specs/ And of course, Google: http://www.google.com/search?q=macbook+dithering Kevin chen2003 (talk) 01:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Future

Maybe, if anybody knows, we can put the future releases for this model (does Apple announce it or is it a surprise?). When is the new one coming out? I would think it would be this summer.--Airplaneman (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Apple doesn't announce anything until it's out. They are probably better with their secrets than the CIA. Not saying much there though...--Terrillja _talk 23:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess that means there won't be a "Future" section...--Airplaneman (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Picture

I recommend we replace the unibody in the infobox with the White as the MacBook is now the White model. Aside from the one unibody release, they've all been plastic. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like that's already been done. Kevin chen2003 (talk) 18:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

? wearing on the palm rest on the 2009 Apple Macbook

We are thinking of purchasing last year's 2009 version Macbook. We did hear that the Macbook eventually has some wear and tear/chipping on the palm rest due to the design. Anyone else experience this? Does applecare cover to fix this? Thanx to all who respond! 74.75.62.49 (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC) The Fick Family

This isn't a forum. You'll get much better feedback at macrumors.com or an equivalent online forum. Airplaneman ✈ 01:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The supposed unibody MacBook picture is actually a photo of a MacBook Pro. Joinuseveryweek (talk) 01:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Maximum RAM in NVidia 9400M MacBooks

This looks like an interesting one. It should be possible to put 8 GB of RAM (2 4 GB DIMMs) in the NVidia based 9400M white MacBook, the aluminium unibody MacBook and the two plastic polycarbonate MacBooks. However, I can't find any references that OS X supports this (It does, trust me!). I've found a reference from NVidia saying that the system theoretically supports it but OS X doesn't and have added this to the article. I also know from forums that the aluminium unibody MacBook didn't support this until a firmware update came out. The problem is; the firmware update doesn't state it adds this support (I'm very sure it is this one). Since it came out (and plenty of people on macrumors reported that 8 GB works here onwards, but it's a forum, so not a reliable source, with links to other non-reliable sources...), myself and two colleagues have successfully upgraded our MacBooks to 8 GB, and it works nicely (three more non-reliable sources right here :) ).

It should also be possible to put 8 GB of RAM in the unibody and non-unibody MCP79 based white macbooks - whether apple has enabled this is another question. SmackEater (talk) 07:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Aha - found a second ref on OWC's blog (expert in the field) here. So have updated the article accordingly. SmackEater (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting. I think that's a more useful link than the NVidia one; NVidia saying what a chipset can do isn't especially relevant to what the Mac can do. Thanks for looking into this. --Steven Fisher (talk) 06:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

No mention of designer?

Jonathan Ive, the designer behind all the modern Apple devices hasn't been mentioned in any one of the articles associated with the Apple devices he created, you could argue that Ive is the reason Apple is so famous today, I can only assume it's either due to ignorance or deliberate. Twobells (talk)

Add one. --Steven Fisher (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

done.Twobells (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone has vandalized the article, removing the designers contribution, fixed.Twobells (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

MacBook 5,x

I have a MacBook which, according to the specs (cpu, ram, gpu, hdd), is a "Early 2009 (white)". Its Model identifier is MacBook5,2 and not, as it was written, 5,1. I've fixed that.

I also have the alluminium MacBook and I confirm that one is a 5,1 instead.

I've no idea about the "Mid 2009", listed as 5,2 too.

--Lo'oris (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Macbook 3.1: 667 Mhz FSB ----NOT-----800

My 3.1 Macbook got a FSB go 667 Mhz and I bought it the Saturday the unibody MB launched. You yould fix it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.216.7 (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Apple Has Ceased Educational Distribution of MacBook?

I read it at MacRumors that Apple has now stopped distribution to educational institutions as well. Could anybody confirm this, please? — User:WikiPanic (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Polycarbonate unibody?

I always thought that "unibody" refers to the unique one-piece aluminum case of the 2008 MacBook. I have never heard the later polycarbonate case called a "unibody" case until I went shopping for an aluminum unibody MacBook on eBay.

Some eBay sellers, knowing that second hand aluminum unibody macBooks sell for a premium, are calling the polycarbonate MacBooks "Unibody MacBooks." Notably, they do not list these computers as "plastic unibody" or "polycarbonate unibody," and the item descriptions do not warn the shopper that these machines are NOT "aluminum unibody" machines. Let the buyer beware.

To my knowledge, there is nothing special about the MacBook polycarbonate case. As far as I know, any injection-molded plastic case could fairly be called a "unibody" case. By comparison the aluminum unibody case for the MacBook was special indeed, and this kind of case is still used in the MacBook pro. To my knowledge, Apple has never referred to the polycarbonate case for the MacBook as a "unibody" case.

By comparison, the Macbook pro article on wikipedia does not call the polycarbonate case a "unibody" case. I suspect that eBay sellers might be manipulating this article to justify their mis-representation of their merchandise.

I'm not very skilled at Wikipedia editing. I suggest that others who take an interest in this topic agree to standard terminology: "unibody case" or "aluminum unibody case" for the 2008 MacBook and "polycarbonate case" for the later MacBooks.69.108.174.223 (talk) 00:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The term "polycarbonate unibody" is perhaps used to name the model in order to distinguish it from the original polycarbonate model. As for the manipulation of this article by eBay sellers, I don't think that's likely because most Apple-related media also refer to the model as the "polycarbonate unibody" MacBook. — User:WikiPanic (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

New Macbook - Is it a revival of the old Macbook line of notebooks or the start of a new line that is simply reusing the Macbook name?

Someone added a paragraph on the new 2015 MacBook laptop, then someone else added a split tag, suggesting the new 2015 MacBook should get it own article, feeling that it was really the start of a new line of laptops, rather a revival of the old line. Since then it appears someone just went ahead and split the article. I'm not so sure that that was the best course of action. I'm not truly convinced that the new 2015 Macbook is really so much different then the old MacBook series to warrant a separate article. My reasoning is as follows:

• The new MacBook (2015) is among the lesser priced laptops Apple currently sells. It is not a pro laptop the way the MacBook pro is. Since the MacBook name was used for Apple's lower end consumer laptops I think this qualifies.
• While an argument can be made that this is really just a new version of the MacBook Air under a different name, I still think it can be properly considered a new version of the MacBook. The original MacBook Air got the word Air added to it's name because it was an extremely thin and light version of the MacBook and because it's original price point ($1700) was much higher then what MacBooks sold for in those days ($1100-$1500). Once the original MacBook line and name was discontinued in 2010, the MacBook Air line essentially took it's place. To me, the modern MacBook Airs really are just MacBooks for all intents and purpose since since the serve the low end laptops needs of Apple consumers.
• I have yet to hear any convincing argument that explains what the new MacBook (2015) has or doesn't have that makes it a separate line of laptop from the original MacBook line. Unless there is evidence that Apple plans to treat the new MacBook (2015) as whole new line of computers and not simply a revival of the MacBook line, then I don't think we should either. If at some point in the future it becomes cleat that it should have it's own article then we can separate it.

So does anyone have any convincing arguments as to why the New MacBook (2015) should not simply be included in this article rather then having it's own article? If not, then I say merge it back into this article. --50.152.139.176 (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

My argument is as follows: (but I've not changed my view) The 2015 MacBook (8,1) is, in my eyes, a new class of laptop for Apple whereas the older MacBooks (1,1 to 7,1) were budget models of MacBook Pros. The 2015 MacBook differs in looks, technology, features, marketing and pricing. I don't believe that it is a successor, simply reusing the same name. I don't think that the polycarbonate Macbook has a successor. The closest is the Macbook Air as this is now Apple's cheapest laptop. If Apple were to reuse the name iBook for a dedicated eBook reader I don't think that any of us would suggest merging its article with the laptop iBook article. I see this as the same thing. It is a completely different laptop, being sold to a different market at a different price-point. It just happens to have the same name. I suggest this to something that reflects its name and years of sale (I understand that there is some debate about this) and creating a page called "Macbook" that redirects to the latest product that uses the name (technology is transient and people are generally interested in what they can use and buy). I believe that both articles should have a link to each other below the title to ensure that those that end up on the wrong article can find their way to the one that they want. St3f (talk) 09:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)St3f

Updated view:Although the products are radically different, they share the same brand. If we consider the page to represent the brand rather than the product then they can co-exist on the same page without hurting my brain. – St3f (talk) 08:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 30 April 2015

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. Number 57 16:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

---

MacBook → MacBook (2011 and earlier), MacBook (2015 version) → MacBook – There are now two articles about products with the same name: this one and MacBook (2015 version). The merger discussion has not lead to a consensus yet. Regardless of the outcome, I argue that the latter article should in any case become the primary topic associated with this lemma. My main argument is that users will come to expect to find the 2015 MacBook when they search for MacBook, rather than a list of discontinued models. Some discussion participants have supported this proposal. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC) —Totie (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose unnecessary disambiguation. The current way is simple and makes sense. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I would be interested in knowing why you consider it an ‘unnecessary disambiguation’. The 2015 MacBook has been stripped out of this article, which you seem to favour. This means that its purpose is largely historical, given that it’s about a product line that was discontinued a couple of years ago. Do you think that it’s more likely that users would expect to find this article when they search for ‘MacBook’ rather than the 2015 line of MacBooks?—Totie (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose ( assuming that the article isn't unspilt which is what I favor ) - The original MacBooks hare more long term significances as part of the PowerPC to Intel migration than the latest model. PaleAqua (talk) 02:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean with long-term significance? The article is about a line of discontinued products and barely touches upon larger issues. Other big topics are discussed elsewhere, like: Apple's transition to Intel processors and Macintosh. The old MacBooks are mentioned in plenty other articles too. I also favour a merger, so I hope this move is neither necessary nor permanent.—Totie (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose 2015 there is no reason why the 2015 version is the primary topic. WP:RECENTISM -- if anything, you can have a disambiguation page, or a model name overview page -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The 2015 MacBook may be recent, but it takes the place of a line of products that was discontinued years ago and as such has lost some its concurrent relevance. I believe the 2015 MacBook is a more relevant search result already and that is something Wikipedia’s naming conventions consider as well. A disambiguation page is an inelegant solution for just two articles. Have you expressed your opinion with respect to the merger yet?—Totie (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Your proposal to rename this article to a new title called "MacBook (2011 and earlier)" is simply incorrect. Despite the discontinuation of the MacBook's third generation for consumer sales in 2011, they continued to be sold mainly for educational sales until they reached end of life seven months later. The last updated version of that model was in mid 2010. Here in Wikipedia, there are many interlanguage links corresponding this article. --24.6.161.63 (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I’m of course willing to change the proposal and would like to hear your thoughts. Are you opposed to the move itself or to the chosen lemma? As I said above, I also favour the merger.—Totie (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I object to the move of "MacBook" because the article consists of three generations of this product, but the article doesn't include a section of the MacBook's fourth generation, which is current in production. We would merge the MacBook (2015 version) article, but if that article should stay, we will propose renaming it to "MacBook (4th generation)" for consistency with generations of iPhone, iPad, etc. --24.6.161.63 (talk) 04:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose – (I've switched my vote) While the Macbook (1,1 to 7,1) can be seen as an evolution of a product that would benefit from sharing the same page (many users might not actually know which model they had), the 2015 MacBook (8,1) is different and users looking for information on 8,1 will generally be uninterested in information on 1,1-7,1 and vice versa. As to which should get the page labelled Macbook why not put them both at a level "Macbook (yyyy-yyyy)" and "Macbook (yyyy)". The 'Macbook' identifier can then be used to point to the latest product that uses that name.—St3f (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Updated view – (I've switched my vote). The page Timeline_of_Apple_Inc._products has a column for family. This column has to point to a page that represents the brand of 'MacBook', no matter that that brand has been used for two radically different products. I think that either have to create a separate page to represent the brand or acknowledge that, no matter how different the products are, that link is a strong one and may be enough justification for them to share a page. — St3f (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Support the idea, just not the exact name "MacBook (2011 and earlier)" (see better idea's below). There are now TWO distinctly separate lines of laptops in Apple's history that happen to use the same moniker, as the term "MacBook" has a long legacy with Apple, they didn't want to remove it, so they very obviously "recycled" the name for a completely new line of laptops. And it's a distinctively separate line of laptops to the first one – the first line ended in a last release in 2011 with Apple's cheapest entry laptop range, while the new began in 2015 with a more premium mid-tier device – but they share little no resemblance to one another, and there was a definite split between the two (hence the 3 years of NO laptop made by Apple using the vanilla "MacBook" moniker). On WP, to make a separation, pages HAVE to be titled differently somehow, so the only option is to put one under one title, and the other under another title, in a similar way to St3f's suggestion above. As a way to deal with this inevitability we are trying to deal with here on WP, I have also suggested a similar naming scheme here: Talk:MacBook (2015 version)#Alternative to merging. Jimthing (talk) 12:08, 24 May 2015 (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.

Alternate approach

Moved from section above per this comment. PaleAqua (talk) 02:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Considering that the merge/split discussion was recently closed as no-consensus and the articles are likely to stay split for now; how about further splitting out the original ( sometimes referred to as discrete, though not sure that is a usable disambiguator ) and unibody models and leave the main article either as a brand over or a disambiguation page? I'd also recommended that the 2015 article be renamed "MacBook (retina)". PaleAqua (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much anything is better than what we currently have. Technology moves fast and I believe that users are going to expect to see the latest Macbook when they search for 'Macbook'. Anything that gets the user an immediate image of the current model, even if this is on a disambiguation page, gets my support. St3f (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The questions that I see is do we make MacBook a disambiguation page or brand page and how various generations are/are not split out. Anyone else have thoughts along this line? Going to ping the talk:MacBook (2015 version) page as well? Hopefully we can get a reasonable plan that has a good chance of consensus. PaleAqua (talk) 02:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion to branch out. What annoys me at this point is that MacBook is treated as the main article, while the attention is now with the Retina MacBook, yet nothing is mentioned of it here aside from a hatnote and one sentence. I think using polycarbonate vs aluminium could work as well, since that is probably the main distinction. But for consistency I would be in favour of using the generation as the identifier. Alternatively, we should flesh out this article a bit more and make it inclusive of the Retina MacBook, but make a reference to the separate article for more details.--Totie (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on MacBook. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090622231843/http://www.apple.com/macbook/specs.html to http://www.apple.com/macbook/specs.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100722123516/http://www.apple.com/macbook/specs.html to http://www.apple.com/macbook/specs.html

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) 09:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Could use more editors at MacKeeper

There are ongoing disputes at the MacKeeper article. It could use more editors. Thanks.Adoring nanny (talk) 13:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Avoid writing too much about the 12-inch MacBook

I would like to suggest that this article should avoid talking about the 12-inch MacBook except for pointing out the differences. In section "criticisms and defects", there's a paragraph talking about the defect of the butterfly machinism which is totally not related to the "MacBook" in this article.Nskernel (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 31 December 2018

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 section.

The result of the move request was: move as proposed. (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

---

• MacBook → MacBook (2006–2012)
• MacBook (12-inch) → MacBook (2015–present)
• MacBook family → MacBook

– As noted in the previous move discussion, this article is not the primary topic for the brand name "MacBook", and the use of the device size to identify the current MacBook line is unsatisfactory. Similar articles, like Power Mac and Microsoft Surface, are about the device families, rather than specific models or lines. I've opted to use the year ranges to disambiguate the two lines, since there are multiple distinguishing physical features of each line which would probably nevertheless be less meaningful as disambiguators to many readers. However, I would not be against using different disambiguators for those two articles (suggestions welcome). To prevent links from being broken I would move two of the articles first and remove any remaining links to MacBook (which would have become a redirect to be deleted). Jc86035 (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment – I'm inclined to support this, but it sure would be helpful if other knowledgeable editors would chime in here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support there are quite a lot of issues here, but this is an improvement. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:27, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support in theory, but because one article will be replaced by another article at the base title, links that previously intended Macbook (2006–2012) will require significant cleanup. Dekimasuよ! 23:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

  Dekimasu, there are 304 in the mainspace. I've got AWB queued up, I was about to close as moved but MacBook is sysop-move protected. SITH (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2019 (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.

Generations

I'd like opinions on how to categorize the "generations" in this article. Personally I think that, should we mention generations at all, what makes most sense by far is:

• 1st gen: Polycarbonate
• 2nd gen: Aluminum Unibody
• 3rd gen: Polycarbonate Unibody

as those are the three sections of the article. If we were to consider any of those the "same generation" then it would only make sense for them to be the same section, which thinking about it it really doesn't. They're all very distinct designs with clear differences between them. If anything it would make more sense imo to group the two Unibodies, as they're somewhat similar (though I still don't like that) but 2601:647:5000:fb0:256b:b0fd:50c8:3304 has been insisting on grouping Aluminum Unibody with Polycarbonate as "1st generation", which I personally find rather confusing.

I attempted to make a neutral change by simply removing any reference to a "generation" and honestly I think I prefer that to anything else actually as Apple never officially grouped these in generations anyways, but 2601:647:5000:fb0:256b:b0fd:50c8:3304 has been reverting any attempt to change it or even compromise.

So my current opinion is no mention of generations, with 3 separate as a second choice.

Update: I think the current state of the article is tolerable so I'm not going to revert your edit, 2601:647:5000:fb0:9d94:da0b:de78:27e5, since you seem oddly passionate about this however I still think it would read better to not talk about "generations" at all. It's perfectly normal for a company (including Apple) to release a new generation of a product and continue selling the old one alongside it. Pk11 (talk) 06:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

GA concerns

This older GA is on the new GA Sweeps listing, so I've taken a look at it.

• There is uncited content, including several citation needed tags
• What is cited in the quality problems section is sourced to Apple tech support pages; a true discussion of quality issues would involve secondary coverage of these issues, not just user-reported issues that may be from misuse or other problems
• "The polycarbonate Intel MacBook is easier for users to fix or upgrade than its predecessor." - is sourced to the user manual, which is problematic for what should be obvious reasons
• The supported operating systems tables aren't really sourced; some of the content is supported elsewhere in the article but a lot isn't
• Several of the web sources are questionable (forum.macrumors.com - it's one thing to cite MacRumors, and another to cite the forums, Other World Computer Blog (some sort of blog/sales website)

This article needs substantial work, or a good article reassessment is going to be necessary. Hog Farm _Talk 16:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)