Talk:Apple Macintosh
|
|
Older stuff from this page can be viewed at Talk:Apple Macintosh/Archive
| Contents |
History begins with Steve Jobs?
Why does the history section begin with the mention of Steve Jobs visiting PARC three months after the Macintosh project began? There should be a mention of Jef Raskin starting the program, and the subsequent acquisition of the project by Jobs. More importantly, Burrell Smith is left out. I vaguely recall it was his innovative board design that started the whole thing. --Chan-Ho Suh 10:09, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
- I agree, but writing on the basis of "vaguely recalling" something might not be a good idea - the folklore.org (http://www.folklore.org) site is an excellent place to get the straight dope from the very people involved. It's also highly entertaining if you're interested in the Mac's history. Graham 23:07, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Actually, I inserted the note to encourage others to write this for me, and put "vaguely recall" to make sure people checked their sources instead of writing what I wrote. I'm pretty sure about my information about Burrell Smith and Jef Raskin, having gotten it from the very site you name. If you're familiar with folklore.org, maybe you can write something? Or perhaps I will indeed need to write something myself one of these days. --Chan-Ho Suh 06:28, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
- http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?story=The_Father_of_The_Macintosh.txt AlistairMcMillan 07:44, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Inappropriate external links
I just removed some edits made by someone to the External Links section, and I thought I'd clarify why I made those changes.
First, there was a redundant link (in a way two links). Folklore.org was already linked to, but the editor neglected to check if it was already included and added a duplicate link. To make it easier to avoid this particular mistake, I've added "(folklore.org)" to the description of the original link. Also, LowEndMac was already linked to (via their page on clones information), but it was duplicated; this time the link was to their main page. This time the mistake was also of another kind. See next paragraph.
Second, there are plenty of Mac retailers on the Web. It's really inappropriate to link to your favorite ones. I realize LowEndMac and EveryMac are pretty popular, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a directory for places to buy Macs. I think it's ok to link to a page, e.g. the LowEndMac page on clones, that has mostly useful information but little commercial content. So I removed the links to LowEndMac and EveryMac since their main pages are blatantly commercial.
Third, I removed the MacCentral link. Again, everyone has their own favorite sources of Mac news. There is no need to advertise one in particular, and I'd hate to see the page degenerate into a list of all the Mac news sources. It's easy enough to find these news sources. I don't think there's a particular need for the Wikipedia entry to list them. --Chan-Ho Suh 22:52, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Deleting the cruft from this page
I deleted a lot of cruft from this page, but User:GRAHAMUK reverted it, saying "there is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater." I don't wish to step on anyone's toes, so I'm leaving to others, especially Graham, to delete the cruft from this page, because there is undeniably some. I think Graham agrees there is some "bathwater" on this page, so I'll let him pick out what that is. But the page as it currently is, is unacceptable. Some of the comments are a couple of years old, and are rather non-informative. Also, is there a need to keep that year-old rant on Mac versus Wintel? --Chan-Ho Suh 23:00, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
- Yep, there's lots of bathwater here! However, it's unusual to ever delete stuff from a talk page - I think that's discouraged simply because it avoids old arguments being rehashed. Compromise - I'll move "the cruft" to an subpage as an archive. It'll probably never be visited again, but it's there if anyone ever wants to revisit the Mac vs Wintel argument again... (yawn). By the way - totally agree with above, there were far too many external links and many were totally inappropriate. Graham 00:06, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
The list of models currently is subtitled "in no particular order". Might I suggest that this is put into chronological order by release date? Since we already have lists grouped by CPU this would make this list slightly more useful. Alphabetic is a bit unnecessary and arbitrary since most model names are similar. Thoughts? Graham 01:04, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Official name still "Macintosh"
The official name is still "Macintosh", it's just abbreviated "Mac". http://www.apple.com/store shows "Macintosh" as the title of the section selling Macs. Philwelch 06:28, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Innovations
From the list of innovations: User programmability through HyperCard and AppleScript
How is this an innovation? Because they made their own scripting language? Numerous other operating systems cam with programming tools before Mac OS.
Furthermore i don't think this article should list innovations relating to the System software at all, although closely tied togather the computer and OS are seperate. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=User_talk:%C6var_Arnfj%F6r%F0_Bjarmason&action=edit§ion=new) 11:55, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
- Hypercard was far more than a scripting language, and its GUI nature *WAS* an innovation. There are relatively few games written in scripting languages, yet it sufficed for Manhole, Cosmic Osmo, Spelunx, and (essentially) Myst. You don't see stuff like this written in csh. It's harder to justify AppleScript as a major innovation, especially with the example of QuicKeys preceding it.
- Atlant 13:48, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Applescript is innovative in that it is programming in (more or less) plain English. HyperTalk provided the original vehicle for a language based on plain English, and Applescript was a redevelopment of it. Unless someone can point to some form of shell scripting in plain English predating this, I'd say it counts as an innovation. Graham 07:00, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Well, if you think that's English, then I guess so. But I don't think that Applescript is really any more English than is any other scripting language. Sure the words look slightly more familiar, but... :-)
- This is not unlike the flamewars that break out over whether OpenVMS DCL is a more-understandable command language than Unix csh. Sure, one uses the apparently-English word "DIRECTORY" and the other says "ls", but neither one is really a natural human language. The first time SYS$NULL: or /dev/null comes up, the illusion is shattered.
- Atlant 13:53, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- "Set the title of the third window to 'My Document'" is plain English. This is Applescript. You could maybe also write something like "Window[3].title = 'My Document'", which is not plain English, and is probably not valid Applescript either. I don't know of any other command line scripting language that looks anything like this. To the purists it may be wordy, but to the average non-tech user, it's perfectly sensible. It's not about the actual words you use, it's how they are put together to form syntactically meaningful commands.Graham 03:27, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Regardless of whether Hypercard is an innovation (I'm not familiar with it), it would really be a Mac OS innovation, not an Apple Macintosh innovation. --User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/Sig 18:42, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)
- Um...no. It's a Macintosh innovation. Mac OS is the Macintosh operating system. Philwelch 19:12, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Chronology
I could be wrong, but I don't believe CD-ROM drives were a standard feature on the Quadra 900. Rather, the first Mac they came standard on was the IIvx. This page at apple-history.com (http://www.apple-history.com/frames/body.php?page=gallery&model=IIvx) appears to agree with me.
- You're certainly correct about the '900 not coming with a standard CD-ROM. I was in the market at the time and CD-ROMs were just becoming common then; Apple was selling their first external CD-ROM drive. The Quadra-840AV I bought later still didn't ship standard with a CD-ROM.
- Atlant 16:13, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Also, I corrected a few dates in the Architecture section: PowerBook G4, 2000 ---> 2001; SuperDrive, 2000 ---> 2001; and B&W PMG3, 1998 ---> 1999. Those models' respective pages on apple-history.com also back me up. :-)
--anonymous Wikipedia newbie
Flat panel chronology
The article currently states that Apple introduced LCD flat panel displays as a standard feature on their desktop systems with the iMac G4 in 2002. Shouldn't this really be the 20th Anniversary Mac, introduced much earlier?
Atlant 14:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- No, the TAM was a special edition that sold few units. The LCD iMac was the first mainstream LCD Mac. Philwelch 19:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- It was still 'standard'. And a desktop. And the first desktop to come with a flat panel standard. Other companies came out with flat-panel desktop PCs between then and the iMac G4, so if you discount the TAM, then the entire line about first LCD should be deleted. I went and deleted the second part of that reference mentioning the Macintosh Portable as a first 'laptop' to include an LCD, simply because it wasn't. Other companies had LCDs on portable/laptop computers well before the Mac Portable. Ehurtley 04:43, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Then remove the line entirely. It's not a "standard feature on their desktop systems" if it only came with one limited-edition system that cost $9999 at first release. Philwelch 19:36, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Non-Macintosh Inclusion
There are a few non-Macintosh items on this list, such as "iPod" and "iPod Shuffle". While these are products by Apple, they don't seem to qualify being listed as members of the Mac family. Does anyone see a good reason to retain them here?
- Anyone interested in a _little_ Mac "joke"? (84.0.21.217 22:43, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC))
- http://www.wap.org/journal/minimacreview.html
- http://www.snowcrest.net/fox/MiniMac/minimac.htm
- http://curtdanhauser.com/AG_Collecting/Today_Retired.html
"Design language"
There's a very confusing and not very relevant paragraph about the Mac "design language" (which I guess means appearence). It doesn't make sense to me. It says that Jobs made a "key decision" in 1981 but that the first Apple product with the "design language" was the Mac SE, which came out in 1987. Mirror Vax 18:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
too specialized external link?
Anon editor 209.164.32.131 (talk • contribs) added the following external link, http://www.creativemac.com, which looks like it is possibly borderline spam, or at least a too specialized link. Could someone more knowledgable about the Mac please investigate. BlankVerse ∅ 13:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed. While CreativeMac is a legitimate news site dedicated to DTP Macintosh articles, it is out of place in this article. I don't think that it is spam (it hasn't been posted to any other Mac articles), we should at least move it to the bottom of the list or Desktop publishing. S.N. Hillbrand 13:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Apple ...
I found this piece of gem on the Internet:
- x86 sucks. 68k rules!
- Ethernet sucks. LocalTalk rules!
- IDE sucks. SCSI rules!
- VGA sucks. DB-15 Rules!
- DVI sucks. ADC rules!
- PS/2 sucks. ADB rules!
- PCI sucks. NuBus rules!
- PCIe sucks. PCI-X rules!
- x86 sucks. PPC rules!
- ... of all those, ONE-BUTTON MOUSE RULES!
Boy, I will miss Apple someday. -- Toytoy 10:38, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Um, what is the point of all of this Mr. Toytoy? None of this is really relavent to the article, and it doesn't help anything. If you are an apple zealot [nuttin wrong with that of course], please propagate your messages elsewhere. Thanx : P CoolFox 04:21, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
A marketshare section
Can we have a section about Mac's historical marketshare? I mean from 1984-now, U.S. and world, Mac v. DOS/Windows with major milestones marked (Steve's gone, "big and ugly" Mac II, ... PPC, clones, Steve's back, iMac, ... Mac OS 8, 9, X, ... x86). Were do we get the best available information? -- Toytoy 01:35, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
that was a HUGE picture
ok, someone put up an immense photograph of a Mac OS 10.4 Tiger box... It was WAY to big for comfort, so I reduced the image to a thumb. I do think the photo should stay, as it is somewhat relavent to the article. CoolFox 04:13, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)