Talk:MacBook Pro/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This is Archive 4, which contains discussions initiated in 2009.


The photo is not good at all,it's very dark and isn't professional, if anyone can find a nice replacement for the newest Macbook Pro, please upload it. 06:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we can use the images at Apple's Press Info site Those are professional images, but apparently the image use agreement doesn't let us. Kevin chen2003 (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I can take a picture of mine and upload it. Airplaneman talk 02:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The person who took the bad photo did. (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
In the meantime, I uploaded a new version that's a little better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin chen2003 (talkcontribs) 18:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"Battery" section (under unibody)

"the non-removable battery is of a unique design unlike any existing notebook battery;" -lithium polymer (which the sentence is referring to) technology is not unheard of. My ultrabay battery (for thinkpad) is li-polymer. I'm sure there are others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macadamiaman (talkcontribs) 11:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't asserting that the battery is of a unique design. Apple is saying it, and we're reporting on the fact that they're saying it. Also, lithium-polymer isn't new to Apple's laptops[1] -- what they're talking about is the non-removable design of the unit itself. Warren -talk- 14:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
nonremovable???? what you mean? i can take the battery out of mine IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The battery in the recently updated 17" MacBook Pro is not removable. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Put a little bit more precisely, the Unibody 17" MBP's battery is not designed to be user-removable. It can of course be physically removed given sufficient effort. Warren -talk- 01:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


the article says "Apple has stated that the 17" MacBook Pro has a rated battery life of 8 hours, and can be recharged 1000 times while still holding 80% of its original charge, although the conditions used to generate such claims are unknown."

However on Apple's website it clearly states: "Testing conducted by Apple in December 2008 using preproduction 2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo–based MacBook Pro (17-inch) units with a Better Battery Life setting. Battery life depends on configuration and use. See for more information. The wireless productivity test measures battery life by wirelessly browsing various websites and editing text in a word processing document with display brightness set to 50%." (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

So how much were they draining the battery between recharges? The page on batteries mentioned in that footnote indicates that they have defined a "charge cycle" as any number of recharges that amount to a 100% cumulative recharge, which I take to be their definition of being recharged "one time", but that is questionable at best. They have provided everything except the information you would need to actually replicate their results. — Aluvus t/c 21:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


Is this just happening on my browser, or does the table look funny for the Discrete MBP?--Airplaneman (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Seemed okay, but it's missing the new 13.3" models. Nja247 21:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

13" Models

Finally, after months of anticipation and predictions, the 13" aluminum Macbooks have migrated into the Macbook Pro Line. Here is a link for specs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I Added the correct processor information from the tear down photos. photo --Alpha Cluster (talk) 18:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

"Rebranded" Macbook

Looking at all the information, I don't think that the 13 inch Macbook Pro is really so much of a rebrand as an upgrade and rebrand. For instance, the Pro has an SD card slot, a Firewire 800 port, and a built in battery. The Macbook had none of those.Pisharov (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

-- Yes, you make good points, but the way that steve introduced the macbook pro 13 inch was by suggesting that the macbook unibody 13 inch was "almost" a pro, and hence more of a rebrand/rename than a new product line. I personally feel that for the timeline particularly, the models should be on the same row as they stem from the same lineage almost directly. Anyone disagree? pinchis (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Unibody Mid-2009 15" specs

I corrected the specs- the 2.8 GHz is a standard option on the 15". It just ships in 1-2 days instead of within 24 hrs. Correct me if this fact is wrong. Thanks, Airplaneman (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Add to table

I was thinking, just to mirror the MacBook article, that we could add the section Minimum operating system required. I would do it myself, except that I don't know the min. OS required. I would appreciate your input on this matter (below). If you can, please add the relevant info with at least 1 ref. I'm going to do some research myself, too. Thanks, Airplaneman (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There's already so much in those tables, but if it'd be useful and properly sourced I suppose there's nothing stopping it from being done. Nja247 09:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I guess I'll put it off until the tables are less cluttered...--Airplaneman (talk) 03:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
First post, no knowledge of wiki-netiquette but here goes. Some of the processor speeds do not correlate with info here. Not sure where the errors lie to be honest but 2.5GHz (2008 model) not listed. Hope I'm helping not causing another kiddy-spat ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Umm, sorry, but yea, it is listed. Please look again. You will find it in the late 2008 discrete model table, far right, mid way down. Hope this helps, and welcome to Wikipedia!--Airplaneman (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Model headings

I've noticed an aversion to the creation of headings for the models, particularly the 13" model. Per WP:LAYOUT these subsections are warranted to differentiate items on the subject if they are written in paragraph prose (which they are). Headings help clarify articles and create structure. The argument on notability is misguided as it applies to whether or not a topic is deserving of its own article, not a section header. If there's disagreement that's fine, but we should avoid any further reverts relating to this until others have chimed in with their point of view on the matter. Nja247 10:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I added the sections for ease of navigation and to organize the facts.--Airplaneman (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, my main grounds for opposing the section headers is consistency with past precedent and I don't see how it "organizes the facts" or facilitates "ease of navigation". It's just giving paragraphs section headers. In fact, WP:LAYOUT says " Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose". The source you cite to support the subsections discourages those subsections that are at most 3 sentences. There is no subsection for the discrete-construction 17" MBP, the 15" Aluminum PowerBook G4, the 17" and 20" iMac G4s, the 24" iMac, or the 14" PowerBook. The 17" unibody MBP subsection merely indicates that it was introduced with a sealed battery. The 13" unibody MBP section indicates that the same battery was spread to the rest of the line andthe 13" aluminum MB was rebranded along with minor spec changes. There is no organization of the facts going on; the facts were already organized to begin with. My initial grounds for opposing the headers may be misguided, but there are other grounds on which I oppose it. The only model headings that contribute to the organization of the article is Discrete and Unibody. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 03:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
What's been done on other articles in not really relevant as this is a unique article as the MacBook is a unique and most popular selling notebook line by Apple ever. If some reorganisation needs done then let's get down to it, but arguing against subsections, which myself and another editor find helpful is not going to help anyone. Unfortunately I don't agree with the view that there are only two places where model headings are appropriate, the three distinct models of MacBook Pro warrant a subsection for readability and clarity. If we need to tweak things to take into account both views that's fine, after all Wikipedia works on consensus, thus Airplaneman, Butterfly, and myself will need to work together to achieve that. Nja247 09:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
You keep saying that subsections are warranted for readability. How so? You're just attaching a header to every paragraph in the section. WP:LAYOUT isn't in favor of very short subsections. It adds clutter. Even if what's done for other models is irrelevant, "MacBook is a unique and most popular selling notebook line by Apple ever" bears no relevance as to why the three individual models of the MacBook Pro need their own subsections. When the MacBook was the best selling line, the Black model didn't have its own subsection. You say it's helpful? How is it helpful? No one has established how taking those three sentence blurbs and making them into subsections is any more helpful than leaving them as paragraphs in the section. It's not like the models were elaborated or anything; all the specficiations are already in the spec table. Those paragraphs are just a chronological detailing of the evolution of the MBP. Both you and the other editor may have the same reasons, but neither of you have explained those reasons, especially when the WP you used to justify the subsections actually discourages those subsections. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
All your opinion, but all I can say is if I was only interested in say the 13" model, then I should be able to find relevant text on it straight away. That's how it helps readability, and after all this is an encyclopaedia and therefore it should be a prime consideration. As I said if some reorganisation is in order then I'm sure Airplaneman and myself will assist. Nja247 08:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry have not had much input on this. I was on vacation. Yes, that is exactly my point, Nja247. I can go to the table of contents and then click on the 13" model to go to it straightaway. That helps with the organaization and therefore reduces clutter. I'll keep an open mind and help with any reorganization that might be needed. --Airplaneman (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The the problem is, the information on the 13" model is primarily in the spec table. All the "subsection" for is one sentence of background information that doesn't really say a whole lot about it. In fact, everything in the subsequent subsections builds upon the previous subsections. The 17" changed something in the 15" model, but the shared aspects aren't being detailed. If I didn't read the 15" MBP section, I wouldn't realize that the 17" unibody was so different from the 15" discrete body; who knows, I could be too lazy to look at other subsections because I only care about the 17" unibody. You may as well make a subsection for everything, then. I want to find about the 15" MBP that lacked FW800. But there's no subsection for that. Or the original 17" MBP. Or the 14" iBook. You're introducing a slippery slope here. It doesn't matter that the unibody MBP is Apple's best selling line of notebooks. I could have an interest in a random obscure Mac, as could others. And again, you're actually increasing clutter and I don't see how this boosts readability. Sure, it adds a link in the table of contents, but it doesn't really make the article any more readable. It makes no sense that there's information on the 15" MBP in the 13" MBP subsection, and it makes no sense for a subsection to contain one sentence. It's going against the WP that you yourself stated. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 02:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the need for an argument over some section headings, but alas, I need to prove my point as well as Nja247's. Let's start with this: All of the subsections are at least three sentences long, not one. Plus, you may as well count in clauses and not sentences because some of them are compund sentences. Not every sentence will hold the same amount of facts. Furthermore, I subsectioned them to take out a long, jumbled paragraph that talked about all of the models. A lazy person could much less navigate that than the subsections. Also, it makes it easier for a lazy person to look up information regarding each laptop and then jump to another subsection to find out more about it's conterpart. The lazy person is not able to do that in one big paragraph. How is it cluttering to put headings for the grouping and organization of information? I specifically subheaded these to make life easier for the rest of the world. Your counterpoints about when the 15" MacBook Pro lost firewire are quite twisted. There is not as much information on them as the new unibodies. Using your tactic, I could counter by saying that it is less than half a sentence long. I specifically grouped them and only them because there was substantially more information regarding them than other topics. Therefore, those two scenarios cannot be compared or contrasted. Almost NONE of the information located in the sections are mentioned in the spec table, contrary to you saying that most of it is. Finally, no, it does not go against the WP that I stated, per the reasons above. Do you now see how this is logical? Good night, Airplaneman (talk) 03:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I still fail to see how the subsections are logical. There originally wasn't one long jumbled paragraph; it was originally 3 separate paragraphs ( . What you've done is slap on subheadings and added more clutter. There isn't even that much information on the individual unibodies that aren't already in the table of specs. The battery information in the 17" subsection is already detailed in the battery subsection. The matte screen option is indicated in the table, as well. The ports aren't listed in the table, but they can be easily added there to mirror the tables for the PowerBook G4. The reasons you stated don't show how what you're doing isn't going against the WP stated. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I'll take that back. The thing is, There was more clutter before. Are we talkling about the PowerBook G4? I thought it was the Unibody MacBook Pro. The way you are putting it is "why even have three separate paragraphs when we could have one big one?" We could just as well remove the battery and design subsection, for some of the things are stated in the table. Well, I just tried to supplement the table with some prose so the lazy person would not have to search for long. The ports, if we add them onto the table, will just add more clutter. I still fail to see how the subheadings I "slapped" onto the article add to the clutter. It tells people what information they will be reading underneath. Now, taking away the subheadings would cause confusion, for you would have to read the whole section to find out more. That is what subsections are for. The reasons I stated in each and every one of my comments do support my first point of organizing, not cluttering, the information and enhancing readability. I miserably fail to see otherwise how subsections add to clutter.--Airplaneman (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Section break

I hope we can stop referring to work done by others to improve the encyclopaedia as being 'slapped' on and other weasely words please. This is to be a collaborative project based on consensus and not petty bickering. The tables are chock full of info, and the paragraphs lacking. I think a reorganisation of how information is presented in this article is order. The MacBook article is in much better shape and has been rated a good article twice. I find the relevance of the PowerBook G4 article lacking as this is a unique model and thus the article needs to be flexible to do the job correctly, which is to convey the information to the reader is the best way possible. I'll have more time over the weekend to draft up some ideas and respond to those you may have. Nja247 16:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for it! Anything I can do to help? --Airplaneman (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have an idea. How about, instead of just removing the section headings for the uni-MBP, we consolidate the info that is related into one sentence (like the screen options not mentioned in the table) and so on. I'll tell you more tomorrow- I need to go right now.--Airplaneman (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: I'm currently fiddling with a timeline-like format in my sandbox. Tell me what you think on my talk!--Airplaneman (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Like it for the most part, the red link for adaptive batteries needs addressed though (ie remove the link or create an article for it). The development section needs to be less time-line like. I haven't time right now to detail the relevant bits of the manual of style, but it just needs a bit of a tweak so that it is more natural prose. I'll do some better analysis soon (I promise), but I do like and be bold and implement things you think need done now. Nja247 16:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I was asked to comment on this minor dispute as a neutral party. I have reviewed the situation and believe the work done at User:Airplaneman/Sandbox is a definite improvement over the current text and have advised Airplaneman to bring them the mainspace. (He has to do it himself for proper attribution.) The new version may not be perfect, but it is an improvement. Wikipedia is a work in progress so there is no need for something to be perfect before it can be implemented.

I believe the expanded prose addresses Butterfly0fdoom's original objections (and he seems to have agreed on Airplaneman's talk page). So really, I think you guys worked this out admirably on your own already. However, if there are any further concerns feel free to let me know. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. Now implementing the most recent edition into the article. Airplaneman talk 06:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


The details of the current range (Unibody) should be at the top. Not buried under a huge table listing the specifications of the older range. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ffrou (talkcontribs) 12:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5