Talk:MacBook (2006–2012)

Manufactured by Asus?

At the top of the article it says the MacBook is manufactured by Asus. The sitation leads to a news site, and the article is pretty old (from before the MacBook had a name, they call it an iBook) It seems kinda strange, because Apple manufactured all their other hardware. Could someone check this out? My MacBook says designed by Apple in California, assembled in China --the Patman of Wiki 02:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually Apple does not manufacture all their hardware. For example, Foxconn makes the Mac Mini and iPods for Apple. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn, (Read the first 4 results from here) http://www.google.com/search?q=ipods+foxconn&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

As for Asus/Asustek production of Macbooks, here are much better sources: http://www.digitimes.com/Backgrounders/ArtReview.asp?datePublish=2007/02/15&pages=PD&seq=210, http://www.emsnow.com/newsarchives/archivedetails.cfm?ID=13659, http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/04/04/asus_macbook_contract/, http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/06/10/10/foxconn_lands_core_2_duo_macbook_orders_from_apple.html, http://news.softpedia.com/news/Apple-Team-To-Supervise-MacBook-Production-at-Asustek-Factory-24214.shtml, http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/06/08/17/apple_shopping_for_third_notebook_manufacturer.html/ Apple, like most other major brand companies, outsources manufacturing. The reason for the iBook reference in the initial source was because anyone who noticed the date would realize that it was shortly before Apple revealed the then-new MacBook line. The 13.3" wide-screen corroborates the story. Never-the-less newer links have been provided here that prove that Foxconn and Asus now produce the Macbook and so I've reverted it back. --72.229.114.117 13:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The link to digitimes is still not what would be considered a verifiable source since it cites "secret sources" and only offers circumstantial information. Further, Apple still does not sell 15.4" MacBooks which is what the main point of that article was. If you wish to place that information on the Asus article, feel free to, but this article has been peer reviewed and to maintain good article status it needs to use only sources which can be verified. Common knowledge doesn't not make it a fact. If you can find a source which quotes someone (by name) who works for or closely with Apple and they state clearly that these computers are made by Asus, then that would satisfy requirements to maintain a good article. Honestly, the fact doesn't really add anything important to the article. The iPod article doesn't state who makes them, nor does Sony Vaio articles when we all know someone else makes them, etc. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay fine. Anyway the article bothers me because it misleads the reader into thinking that Apple manufactures the MacBook themselves, as seen by Patman of Wiki's statement. This is despite orgs like Engadget, The Register and so on repeating and generally accepting this. Isn't that a bit unrealistic to expect Apple, or any company for that matter, to reveal their ODM sources even if its accepted by those reporting in the industry? Does it matter that Asustek was the same company that made the iBooks too? In the end it does matter because there is a huge difference between products manufactured by themselves and those marketed via ODMs. Besides the common jump in price for marketed products there should also be awareness. Also I would like to add that the iPod article does mention the workers exploitation situation which explicitly names Foxconn as the manufacturer. I guess you're waiting for a major company to basically do a press release or someone high up do a press release on their ODM, which they'd never do unless disaster comes out. Anyway I'll leave the article as is for a long time, until I find something really specific that crops up and that makes it undeniable for even the biggest skeptics. --72.229.114.117 19:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I do see your point, and if Wikipedia weren't an encyclopedia I'd say add the information. However it is an encyclopedia, therefore articles about speculation and rumours cannot be considered as a verifiable source. I suppose, in regards to the iPod article, the name of the manufacturer only came up due to the suspicion of unethical labour violations. However in that example, there was some acknowledgement by Apple and more than a casual link was shown to have existed between the two companies in regards to the iPod, and further, the story was covered by major media outlets. Your work is certainly appreciated, and again I see your point, but again the information needs to be relevant and more than speculative to be included on an article on an encyclopedia. And further this article was worked on extensively in the past to ensure its quality to make it a "good article" and it is possible the Wikipedia Mac project team will try to get this article as a featured article and therefore that quality must be maintained. Cheers. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, it was designed by Sony after Ive's team showed they can't design a decent laptop (see below). -- 86.17.211.191 00:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm? Taking one person's unsourced ranting as fact, I see? Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 05:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

External Sites

I stumbled across 2 websites on Digg, one for Black MacBook and one for White MacBook, they seem to be repositories with upgrade guides and galleries.

Binary prefixes

There seems to be an edit war in progress on the use of binary prefixes in this article and other Macs. I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) on the question of whether the new prefixes (MiB, GiB, ...) should be used in articles about consumer products where the manufacturer doesn't use them.--agr 11:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This has been debated to death already. The consensus always ends up being that the prefixes should be used because they're more accurate and reduce confusion. It's in the Manual of Style to prevent this discussion from wasting everyone's time over and over again. Please respect it. — Omegatron 15:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall that the last time you and I had a disagreement was over Kreider's Law. At that time you strongly objected to Wikipedia being used to promote new terminology that was not in wide use elsewhere. That is exactly what is going on here. The personal computer industry does not use these prefixes. Articles about the industry should not be required to convert to them.--agr 16:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

:-) "Kryder's Law" is a term invented by a Wikipedian and promoted by a Wikipedia article. That's a little different from an international standard system of measurement that's been in use for several years. (Or, for that matter, an international standard system of measurement that's been in use for hundreds of years, though sometimes corrupted in consumer literature.) Read the arguments on the page I linked if you don't understand why it's important to use these prefixes in an encyclopedia. We've been through all of this already, numerous times. — Omegatron 14:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree this case is a little different, but the underlying reality is that Wikipedia is being used to push terminology that has not been widely adopted in the subject area. There is no source cited for the recent edits that repalce MB and GB with MiB and GiB. There is no way for a reader to verify them against the published Apple specs. --agr 18:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The majority of reliable sources for this article do not use binary prefixes. If you have any thoughts/opinions then this specific topic is being discussed on the following talk page Manual of Style (dates and numbers) in the sections to do with "binary prefixes". Fnagaton 10:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Disputed criticism

I'm moving this piece of text here to the talk page because it's not sourced and an anon added a bit of text disputing it. Since it doesn't make sense for the article to contradict itself like this, I'm moving it here so it can be discussed.

• A less frequent problem that some Macbook users encounter is their computer will start up and stay in Darwin mode. This happens by the user changing the permissions. Though the user may not be changing the permissions of their master account, this can still lock them out of their own computer leaving them stuck in Darwin. To fix this, the user must re-install OSX. <--(Not true; there is a simple line of text that can be entered in Darwin which "repairs" the permission settings. Type "Sudo diskutil repairpermissions /" without the quotes) Depending on the severity of the problem, the user may or may not lose their information.

—Cleared as filed. 05:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

Is it really necessary to list references to the MacBook in pop culture? Most of the entries on the list are completely irrelevant... lots of artists use Macs, so why only list Armin Van Buuren? "Chicken Little" came out in 2005, a year before the MacBook, so it's really spoofing the iBook. In addition, listing every music video or TV show that a product appears in seems pretty un-encylopedic, and I haven't seen it done in many other articles. Should we even bother keeping this section? - seinman 13:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I also think we should get rid of it. It'd be one thing if there were some meaningful, historically important references to the MacBook, but a list of every time a MacBook appears someplace doesn't belong on Wikipedia. —Cleared as filed. 22:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for GA review

I think the article meets all of the criteria. Being a GA reviewer myself (though I've been too busy the last month to do any reviews) I believe it will pass. Though, I've been known to be wrong. The reasons for failure last time are included in the 2006 archive. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's very close to a GA. A few comments.

• There should be some lead-in sentence in the comparison section. Right now, it goes straight into comparing MacBook and MacBook Pro.
• The 3GB ram limit references a message board topic which is generally not a WP:RS. Is there a MacBook review that mentions this that you could cite?
• "It's speculated that another reason for not making use of a discrete graphics solution is the amount of space available inside the MacBook." - sounds like original research and needs citation
• The specs section... I think it would be better as a two-column bulleted section? It's kind of difficult to read as it is.
• In the issue section, the last bullet has a {{fact}} tag.
• are there any usage or sales numbers?
• maybe a reception section discussing what reviewers think of its form factor, value?

Mahanga^Talk 19:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, great suggestions BTW.

• I don't quite understand what type of lead should go into the comparison section. I mean, it's self-explainatory (at least to me). A suggestion would be helpful.
• I found a better reference (I believe) for the 3GB ram, which includes performance benchmarks with the 3GB versus the 2GB.
• It was original research, and has been removed. I tried to re-work that paragraph. Since Apple never has (or will) explicitly state why they went with integrated gfx versus their usual dedicated path, some speculation is almost unavoidable. However it's still an important section since this is the first notebook in a long while, if not ever from Apple utilising it.
• Agreed.
• Cited. If not a good citation, it should simply be deleted until someone finds a better source.
• Apple has not, to my knowledge, released any actual sales figures. Any figures that I've came across were not verified by Apple and thus not verifiable.
• Great idea. Could be added in long-term, but I've just spent two hours doing the table. I may do it (or someone else can), but not straight away. I don't think it's necessary to pass a GA though.

Let me know what you think thus far. Aside from the non-use of tables where appropriate and the fact tag, I don't see anything barring this article from passing GA. Again, I could use help on a lead into the comparison section and help with the proposed reception section. While they are not requirements for a GA, they were excellent suggestion and would make the article better. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 13:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Good work. I passed it. Mahanga^Talk 20:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Power consumption

Please include average power consumption (watts) in computer articles.-69.87.199.199 13:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Rework the table

With the 3rd generation now out, the specifications table isn't really suitable anymore. I propose to subdivide the three generations in to 3 row tablecells for each of the base configurations or something like that. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, there are other parts of the article which need updating now that the 3rd generation is out. For example, the introduction states the old processor speeds. Fusion Fox 16:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems like it's all been updated now, thanks to the people who did it. --Fusion Fox 16:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

One more change that needs to be made to the Specifications table and I do not feel comfortable that I know how to edit it. The Late 2007 2.0/2.2 GHz MacBook differs from the Mid-2007 MacBook in terms of the SuperDrive's capabilities. The drive will now write to both DVD+R DL and DVD-R DL discs at 4x speed per Apple's web site (http://support.apple.com/specs/macbook/MacBook_Late_2007.html). 18 November 2007

To much information/in the wrong order?

While I'm fairly impressed by the article I do find that it contains maybe a bit to much text or that it's in the wrong order. The first part, the overview, should be shortened alot. A lot of information is redundant etc. Is it ok if I take an hour or two to clean/rearrenge the article to make it easier to read? 90.224.152.178/Djupeg

I am sure it'd be welcomed by all for you to help improve the article. However, I'd like it if you would post the 'new' version here first so we can make sure it retains all of its current information, albeit in a summarised fashion with redundancies removed. Cheers. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 07:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Merom (2007)

In the table comparing the orignal Macbooks with the new (May update) one, it says that the processor is a 2007 Merom. Which, I think , based on this article, is implying that the Macbook has a Santa Rosa processor, which is untrue. As the MB's processor still has a 667 MT/s FSB compared to a Santa Rosa's 800 MT/s. I think, just for clarity that the May 2007 update table should be changed just to Merom.

Yea, this is not the case and it's been removed. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sony

Why doesn't this article state that the unit was designed by Sony? It's even got the old Viao style chicklet keyboard (now known as the Apple style keyboard and called as such when "plagiarising" Sony reintroduced it to one laptop line. Go figure). 62.25.106.209 17:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Simple, dude. Because it absolutely KILLS Apple fanboys to even think about that. Though, as you point out, they have been more than happy to claim the chicklet keyboard as an Apple innovation and yes, now accuse Sony of copying it. I suggest you add it to the article then hang around for two minutes and watch the iRevert come in (probably tagged "rvv"). -- 86.17.211.191 00:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Sony was involved in the design of the original (and some of the first few) PowerBook(s). But (for sure), Apple notebooks since the PowerBook G3 were designed in-house by Ive's team, unless you have a source that says otherwise. Furthermore, do you have any sources in regards to the use of the sunken-style keyboard? If not, then don't be randomly posting rants here. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 05:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If a verifiable reference from a verifiable source is found to confirm this information then no one would revert the addition to the article (see WP:RS). However without these sources it's just a rumour which is unencyclopedic. I personally do not think it would matter if Sony or Asus or whoever designed it. It's Apple who markets and sells it, not the former. And if I recall, the Sony Vaio in question came after the MacBook was launched (http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=290) (http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/10993/) (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/09/19/sony_unveils_vaio_n10/). Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"Lack" of product specs.

I deleted the phrase about Apple not having a graphic section on their product page, because they actually have, see: http://www.apple.com/macbook/specs.html . Neither does the Mac Mini page include such a section, but at the Mac Mini page this 'issue' is not named. So I have to conclude this little phrase does not add value to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.249.41.90 (talk) 19:08, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Bundled Software

Comic Life is no longer bundled with all intel based macs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.240.118 (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no mention of iWork'08 (trial version) being bundled with all MacBooks.

Issues section

While it is useful to point out potential issues with a product, Wikipedia is not a consumer review website and the neutral point of view policy becomes strained when highly subjective opinion pieces are added to the article. Any issue that is obtained from a subjective review should be truncated, and where possible resolved issues or issues that relate to a bit already covered in the main article should be merged into that area and not be part of a overall criticism section. Further, it's not very encyclopaedic and possibly is a copyright violation to copy and paste every issue at appledefects.com. Every issue copied this way should be deleted and a general link to appledefects.com added to the external links section. I'll wait for comments on this, but if no one is against this latter bit I'll do it myself in a few days. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

X3100 and DirectX 10.0

Th Intel GMA page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_GMA) says that the X3100 GPU supports DirectX 10.0. The MacBook vs. MacBook Pro section in this article denies it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.141.102.236 (talk) 11:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It does not support Direct X 10. Page 14 and 15 of the Mobile Intel 965 Express Family chipset data sheet are quite clear that X3100 is a DX 9 part. (ftp://download.intel.com/design/mobile/datashts/31627303.pdf). Thus this article is correct. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually doing more research, the X3100 featured on the GM965 does do DX10 (http://download.intel.com/products/graphics/intel_graphics_guide.pdf). Thus I've updated the article to reflect it. Thanks for bringing it up. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Apple hiding info...

Which Core 2 Duo is the processor actually? Everywhere it just says Core 2 Duo 2,0GHz but which one is it q: --Sigmundur 09:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite simple really, if it's a 800MHz bus 2.0GHz Core 2 processor, it must be the T7300, and the 2.2 model the T7500. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

Could the timeline possibly be any lower contrast? It's almost impossible to tell where sections meet, and the legend is entirely useless. Admittedly, I am slightly colorblind, but I see no reason for the color scheme to remain on the edge of usability. 24.127.45.75 23:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The present timeline colors and attributes can be edited, but it is often difficult to find the link due to how Wikipedia handles these templates. Kaomso 16:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Colors are directly ripped off the iPod timeline, actually. That said, there isn't that wide a range of color shades before the range is used up if going for a high contrast between the color shades. Although as the MacBook family gets older and more processor changes come along, it'll have to shift to just being processor or casing changes instead of also encompassing chipset changes. As for the templates, just click "edit" and then "edit this page". Pretty annoying, though, the way Wikipedia handles it, yes. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms removed

Some newer editors have taken the liberty to remove an criticism found in the intro which noted the now resolved random shutdown issues of early MacBook's. While I agree that this issue may no longer affect the MacBook, it is still most certainly relevant. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, therefore all relevant and well documented information relating to the entire history of a product (whether resolved or not) should be included. This is not a sales page for Apple, but an account on the entire history (good or bad) of the product.

The criticism in question was well sourced, NPOV, and integrated into the article instead of a separate section to further add to their objectivity. I hope to encourage some discussion regarding this. I have re-added it for the reasons noted. If you disagree with me please do so here and we can work out a consensus. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tech hints/troubleshooting site. This page does not have to include every technical issue concerning some MacBooks; it also has to place the MacBook in broader context (hence the importance of that new family page and link.) A fixed crash that affected some early MacBooks in its first incarnation (including the one you bought?) fails notability; if it affected most MacBooks it would be more likely to be notable. If someone's Mac is shutting down unexpectedly they'll get help and diagnosis; no-one else need be concerned. The majority of MacBooks are unaffected; this is not of general interest. The best I can suggest is an 'issues' section down the page, where well-sourced comments on crashes, discoloured palmrests, heat sinks, covered vent slots etc. affecting some Macbooks are placed; this issue information makes no sense in the introduction to the article, of all places, where broader context is set. The MacBook Pro page does have such an issues section - which is currently being questioned as to point. As to the MacBook vs Pro, that's a decision best made on the family page - otherwise the text answering 'which one is best?' would have to get repeated on both the MacBook and Pro pages. We have a 'comparison of Macbook family models' section on the family page, where the 'which one' is best addressed, and this page could include a link to that. 82.35.207.120 (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, this is an encyclopedia which is to include a wide array of information relating to a product. The information as presented does not give a hint or troubleshooting information; it is simply a statement of fact. An entire history of a product line is expected here, and the random shutdown issue was well known and recognised by Apple. Since the entire history of a product is notable, so are issues that plagued it during that time. This isn't apple.com wherre we act like the old models no longer exist and are no longer notable. As per Wikipedia policies articles are to maintain a neutral and thorough presentation. Your explanation doesn't seem to give (to me) a valid argument or cited Wikipedia policy to remove it. Use and watch this page to establish consensus among other editors on how to proceed as this is a community project.

Secondly, it is not good policy to create 'issues' sections. It's much more preferred to integrate the issues into the article so as to give a neutral presentation. Having an issues section is not only bad editing, but creates a non-neutral presentation of information since issues are construed as negative. Lastly I agree that moving the comparison of models to the new article is a logical decision -- though it should become a simple link to the article in the "see also" section at the bottom. No reason for it's own section as it's not within proper Wikipedia drafting. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally see no reason whatsoever for that item to be in the introduction to the article. In the article sure, in the introduction no. It simply is not that important. Compare Pentium, which (despite a hugely bloated introduction) makes no mention of the far-more-infamous FDIV bug until later in the page. — Aluvus t/c 19:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It's always been there and it's the only part of the article that speaks about the old MacBook models; the rest of the article is focused around the current line-up. Where do you suggest it to go? There's no reason aside from personal taste that it cannot go where it has been. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

"It's always been like that" is not a compelling reason to do something. The purpose of the introduction is to provide an overview of the article topic. A factoid about a now-resolved issue does not belong there. It is not important enough and semantically does not fit in an introduction. If there is no other obvious place to put it, then either the article structure should be adjusted or the item should be left out. If creating an "issues" section is "bad editing", shoehorning things into the introduction for no good reason is even worse. — Aluvus t/c 23:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

please improve this by putting macbook vs macbook pro (i don't know if the [] will let you go there) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.187.252 (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

'Overview'

Is it just me, or does this seem more like an advertisement? 220.253.17.191 (talk) 10:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)