Talk:Mac Mini

Split by CPU?

Now that were are two revisions deep into Apple Silicon, should we go for another round of splitting? And if not now, should we wait for the inevitable redesign? QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Not seeing any basis. We're at 21KB prose size, so a size split isn't warranted. And they're ultimately all revisions of the same product, so a "scope split" isn't warranted either. The distinction between CPU also seems arbitrary. Why not keep all the information in one place? DFlhb (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The MacBook Air and MacBook Pro split by CPU type and have their Apple Silicon models in a separate page. The iMac has to split between G3, G4, G5, Intel, and Apple Silicon. So there is precedent. The MacBook Air I think split immediately after Apple Silicon came out while the MacBook Pro took a while but it happened. If now isn't the time should we wait for the third revision of Apple silicon or the inevitable redesign? QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I oppose all the splits people did after Apple silicon came out, since none of those splits made any sense.

To use iMac as an example: "iMac G5" was an official product names, just like "iPhone 14" is. So at the time, reputable secondary sources adopted "iMac G3" and "iMac G4" as retronyms. So we get to treat them as distinct products without WP:OR.

But then Apple went back to calling every model "iMac" (no suffix). Secondary sources never treated all Intel iMacs as a single product, and all Apple silicon iMacs as a single product, so it's completely arbitrary for us to do so.

For the same reason, it makes zero sense for us to declare that the 2006 and 2016 MacBook Pro belong in the same article, but separate from the 2020 MacBook Pro. Equivalent pages (like ThinkPad X series) have one page per product line, and that's what we should go back to.

Splits should only happen for products that received (1) significant third-party coverage, and (2) were given a distinct, non-OR name by secondary sources (like iMac G3, or "TouchBar MacBook Pro"). The arbitrary splits should be undone. DFlhb (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

It also more actively done by processor type than by name so people just saw the change in processor to be the logical boundary line. The Intel models couldn't really be split up by processor type so they decided just to have them all in together. Then once Apple Silicon rolled around people saw it as the logical thing to do. Early on the Intel iMac page was titled "Intel iMac" but was changed because people thought it would possibly confuse people into thinking intel made the iMac. QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I won't restate my arguments, but you might want to see this WikiProject discussion in which these splits were brought up. For an inactive project with poorly maintained pages, arbitrary splits just increase the maintenance burden even further. DFlhb (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

To add further, outside of size concerns, we shouldn't be splitting and developing our own nomenclature beyond what reliable sources say; to do otherwise is original research. As brought up at some List of... AfDs relating to Apple coverage on Wikipedia, if sources aren't grouping things the way Wikipedia is, Wikipedia is wrong. (Honestly I see this as a recurring problem with a ton of our content where we decide on "generations" and name them in a way they don't appear to have been by the press.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

But later on it seems like OR is acceptable if the definition is on objective criteria and has precedent. The split is clearly based on the iMac and MacBooks. Would we split the Mac Pro once the Apple Silicon model comes out? QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Would we split the Mac Pro once the Apple Silicon model comes out? Did the product name change? Do our reliable sources call them different names? Is the article reaching a size where this makes sense as a breaking point for splitting it up? —Locke Cole • t • c 18:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

People split the iPad Pro up even without a name change. And the MacBook Air pretty much immediately got an article split and the MacBook Pro got one after a year, and a redesign. QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Just because other editors do something wrong doesn't make that the standard. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with everything DFlhb has said on the topic, including a disdain for splitting other articles over chipsets. As discussed in a section above, if a split is desired, I agree that overwhelming tables of technical data should be first to be sequestered away from general audiences; this is an encyclopedia after all. — HTGS (talk) 12:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree with this. No reason to separate this article out by architecture, but the tables would be best placed in their own articles, as it true of many articles on computers and computer parts. Would like to see this applied broadly across Wikipedia. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Generations WP:OR

Is there any source that backs up these "generations", or did we make them up? DFlhb (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

After looking into it; our nomenclature is WP:OR, but it's based on objective criteria; the delineation is fine.

But calling them "generations" seems too arbitrary; ask any tech journalist about "the 4th generation Mac mini" and they'll give you a blank look. Renaming the headings is likely all that's needed. DFlhb (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

What else would they be called? If you ask someone what a 3rd generation MacBook Pro is, they'll be conclusive it's the original retina model. Although I think they'd have more of a clue if we split them up by processor type. QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

What do our reliable sources, or, Apple, call them? —Locke Cole • t • c 18:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure? Mainstream press identifies them by year, like "MacBook Pro (Early 2015)"; IT professionals identify them by model number ("A1502"); and very few people use model identifier (MacBook Pro 12,1). But I've never heard anyone refers to any modern Mac by "generation".

MacBook Pro: here are the official Apple designations, and a few reliable sources: [1][2][3]. For Mac Mini: official designations, and reliablce sources: [4] [5]. I'm very confident that any use of this "generations" nomenclature by a handful of secondary sources is WP:CITOGENESIS. Apple never designates generations; not in keynotes, or specs sheets, or ever. DFlhb (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

On this note, while we no longer have the generations, based on the press coverage I've seen, it seems like we should probably just use model years for the distinctions? At the very least stuff like "silver unibody" and "space grey unibody" are not distinctions the press made (and the differences between the 2010ish and 2018 models doesn't seem to justify it getting another subsection just because of its paint job.) Thoughts? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Update to Supported systems\Windows versions section

Windows 11 was released way back in 2021. Yet there is no mention of Windows 11 in the Windows versions section. Theoretically the 2018 Mac mini should be able to support Windows 11 as the 2018 Mac mini has an eighth-generation Intel CPU and Microsoft says that any eight-generation or newer Intel cpu will officially be able to support Windows 11. Theoretically ANY Mac mini with at least 4gb RAM, 64gb SSD and a 64-bit CPU should be able to run Windows 11, although older cpus may need a patch/hack to install. 182.58.229.251 (talk) 12:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

New Mac mini

Apple just announced the new M4 Mac Mini today. HistoryFanOfItAll1999 (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)