Talk:MacBook Pro

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the MacBook Pro article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

MacBook Pro has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
February 3, 2010	Good article nominee	Not listed
April 1, 2010	Good article nominee	Not listed
April 27, 2010	Good article nominee	Listed

Current status: Good article

Apple Inc. GA‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing GA‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as High-importance).

Template:Apple Macintosh SA

Archives

Archive 1 – 2006
Archive 2 – 2007
Archive 3 – 2008
Archive 4 – 2009
Archive 5 – 2010

Apple refs removed

Per the above GA review, I'm removing all possible Apple Inc. references, as they are primary sources. I'm only removing them if there is another third party source already in place next to it; this renders to Apple reference redundant and therefore unneeded. I'm depositing the diffs here for possible future use:

[1]

[2]

[3]

Airplaneman ✈ 20:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Moved from Talk:MacBook Pro/GA3 Airplaneman ✈ 20:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The new 15' and 17' Macbook Pros are listed as having Intel Direct Media Interface for their FSB - shouldn't this be Intel Quick Path? Squater (talk) 20:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

price

how could you not mention the price —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.45.4 (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the U.S. in the not the only place these computers are sold. If you include the U.S., you then invite people to include other countries. Also prices change all the time and there are separate variants and models to do this for, so including them all would be very difficult. Lastly, we are not a buyer's guide. If you want price, go to Apple.com. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cheers blood —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.45.4 (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Memory expansion of 'Early 2009' 17" model / Harddisk size

In the table it states "2.66 GHz and 2.93 GHz models expandable to 8 GB but only 6 GB addressable".

This is not correct, the 'Early 2009' 17" MBP is abled to use the full 8 GB.

Additionally, it should be mentioned that the Unibody enclosure allows usage of half-inch height harddisk drives, a feature that virtually no other notebook model on the market has, thus enabling users to install 1 TB harddisk drives, which currently (as of October 2010) are only available in half-inch (12.5mm) height. 87.139.51.245 (talk) 11:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the RAM error, it has been addressed now. Concerning the 12.5 mm disk drives, the only sources that I could find to support this are forums, which are not reliable sources. I am not doubting the claim, but we need a reliable source to verify it. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WTF is with the use of the word "discrete" to describe early models?

This word doesn't really make any sense to me. I never heard of "discrete Macbooks" before - this page is a top hit when you Google for the term and some of the others are clearly coping this text for SEO or other purposes. So it's not clear to me that if Apple themselves has ever used the term. Please slap me if I'm wildly wrong, but it kinda seems to me just like some editor has tried to find a word to differentiate the early models from the current unibody ones and this is what he came up with. Can't we just do a global search and replace on the page and change it to "early model"?--Stroller (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've suspected the same thing as well, but I found the edit in question, and it is apparently an Apple term taken from a slide presented at an Apple event.

The word "discrete" by definition means separate or independent components. Since the casing of the 2006 through to 2008 MacBook Pros is not one component (unibody), it is an entirely appropriate description. For example, the panel around the keyboard is separate to the base and sides. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it's clearly a backnomism. No-one ever talked about "woah! the new discrete Intel MacBooks are so cool!" or "the discrete MacBooks are much more expensive than the plastic ones". It's obviously a term that was coined only after the model was discontinued - if it was ever actually used outside of Apple HQ then that was only sparsely and for a very short period. I mean, I know what the word means, and I figured that "separate components" was the reason for using it, but it still seems a very odd term, especially to repeat it a dozen times.--Stroller (talk) 14:16, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a clumsy term, but "early model" is much more vague. The solution I have seen in the trade press is to just say "non-unibody" or something like that. If we're going to stick with "discrete", it would be worth pointing out in the article text where that term was taken from. — Aluvus t/c 00:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]