Talk:MacBook (2006–2012)/Archive 1

This is Archive 1, which cover discussions which began in 2006.

Speculation

Information about the release of the MacBooks has been leaked and recorded in an article on Think Secret. I edited this article to be about the MacBooks (speculative) and no longer redirect to the MacBook Pro's because of the trustworthiness of Think Secret's speculations Feel free to disagree with me. Brett 17:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Might want to mention that a lot of sites out there are speculating a true 16:9 resolution of 1280x720, which while disappointing, is in line with the resolution reductions in the MBPs to hold the built-in iSight? Michel 21:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you, but since ThinkSecret is verifiable, it works. there is a difference between verifiable and true, however. -- Chris Ccool2ax 03:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Folks, I don't think Wikipedia is the place to mirror information from rumor sites. As an encyclopedia, we should only include verifiable claims. It would be wrong to write a whole article based on speculation even if Nick DePlume is a reliable guy. Besides, maybe in a few more hours, this discussion will be moot. Ramallite ^(talk) 03:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but given the expectation of an announcement Real Soon Now (TM), I think we can afford to let the article hang around for a few more days. MFNickster 03:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Released

This article can now be updated given the official release (5/16/06) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:24.170.192.189 (talk) .

Main page graphic

Someone should find an appropriate picture of the classic white MacBook for the main page graphic, as it is the default model, and the black is a special model. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aanhorn (talk • contribs) .

Disagree. Apple has a long history of white computers. The black MacBook is different. -- Steven Fisher 22:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Not that different for laptops, though. The PowerBook was black for a number of generations. jareha ^(comments) 23:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Two out of three MacBook models are white. The iBook was white. Apple is charging a premium for the black MacBook and thus it is a special model and not representative of most MacBooks. To avoid confusion, the main page graphic should show the default white MacBook. - Aanhorn

A photo of the white MacBook should be in the infobox, but the black photo should also be kept somewhere in the article. — Wackymacs 08:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Now if only coright were a yth and I could easily rip the MB pics from Apple.com..

Hard drive

Since the hard drive is upgradeable, it would be cool if one of the owners could measure if it's 0.5" or a 0.375" in height (160 GB drives only seem to be available in 0.5" currently). 82.32.65.149

What is the hard drive manufacturer ? Seagate ? What exact model is it ?

Glossy Screen

It should be pointed out that the new glossy screen is an option.

From the Apple Store they have a "Learn More" link where you can choose the glossy display, it reads:

Quote: Display

Choose the glossy widescreen display to make your graphics, photos, and videos appear with richer color and deeper blacks - great for watching DVD movies. If you prefer a display with anti-glare coating for a matte rather than glossy viewing experience, choose the standard widescreen display.

Both widescreen displays are significantly brighter than previous Apple notebooks. The 15-inch MacBook Pro is 67% brighter than the 15-inch PowerBook G4, and the 17-inch model is 36% brighter than the 17-inch PowerBook G4.Kar98 15:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is only an option on the MacBook Pro. On the MacBook (discussed here) I believe it is the only option. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 15:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm that it is definitely not an option for the MacBook. You have to take the glossy screen. 82.32.65.149

There have been personal modifications done by owners, but Apple does not (yet?) offer a MacBook with a matte screen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stanleyshilov (talk • contribs) 23:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Glossy screen: anti-glare?

I'm not sure the following excerpt is factually correct:

The new glossy display has different reflective properties than the traditional matte style, and is said to increase overall display contrast. Apple's approach with the new glossy display is similar to other PC manufacturers, such as Sony with its XBRITE displays.

I was under the impression that Sony's displays were much less reflective, and probably correctly classified as anti-glare. It may also be mentioned for NPOV balance that some users have been complaining about the reflection being excessive. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

But the MacBook's display is not anti-glare, and is reflective ? — Wackymacs 18:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The MacBook's display is anti-reflective, like the anti-reflective (aka. glossy) screens from other vendors. "Anti-reflective" doesn't mean that there is no reflection; it means that the the total amount of reflected light is lower (i.e. power response measured over the full hemisphere of the display). However, because the light that does get reflected is direct, not diffuse, the actual reflections may appear more intense and easily visible. --Chris Thompson 19:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If you've ever seen a Sony and MacBook display side by side, you'll understand that they have very different reflective properties, and the above statement ("similar to [...] Sony with its XBRITE displays") will then seem contrived. Sony displays have some kind of extra scattering that means they're little use as mirrors, much in contrast to the MacBook. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Black 'Book

I moved the image back to the right for the following reason: It doesn't look quite right on the left, because the screen faces off the page. It is for the same reason that Microsoft changed desktop icons from facing the left to right from Windows 98 -> Windows 2000. I know it's a very picky point - but I guess ultimately the community decides. This is just my opinion. I would have a image on the left if we showed the MacBook from the left side - i.e. a picture that shows the ports rather than the optical drive side. What do you all think? --mintchocicecream 08:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It is for the same reason that Microsoft changed desktop icons from facing the left to right from Windows 98 -> Windows 2000. - Ehhh? — Wackymacs 08:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Desktop icons on Win98 face the left [[1]] and those on Win2k face the right [[2]]. I am sure there are better examples around. --mintchocicecream 09:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Very strange, from all the screenshots i've seen before of Win2k the icons have been the same as Win98. — Wackymacs 09:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Win95 and Win2000 screenshots. Notice the different icons for "My Computer" and the Recycle Bin? I see that the "Shut Down" menu icon stayed facing the same way. What this has to do with showing MacBook features, I have no idea! MFNickster

Hahaha... It was just about the alignment of the black MacBook pic. I was trying to say I think it looks better on the right, because the display 'faces' left - and used the Windows icons as an example (not the best example, though!). There are NO hard and fast rules about this, though - just that I think it looks better if we could have a new image taken from the left side of the machine. --mintchocicecream 07:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you're getting confused with Windows Me? It has the same icon set (and colour scheme) as Windows 2000. Warrens 06:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

This article failed to become a good article as the lead section is too long. Cheung1303 05:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• What?? Personally I think the lead is just right, two concise paragraphs! Most featured articles have similar leads. — Wackymacs 07:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's nonsense. A good lead section for an FA is three to four paragraphs. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I also agree so I promoted this article. Tarret 14:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Battery life?

Any data on this? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That is particularly hard to specify, because it all depends on the user. If the Back light is high or low, if you use your Disc Drive, if you burn a disc or if you put your hard drive to sleep. IMHO i would say about 2 hours with middle brightness setting and no Disc use. (Me-pawel 03:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC))

Mac mini and MacBook

In response to the rejection of my recent edit, I would argue that the Mac mini's configuration is significant for two reasons:

• the MacBook was obviously derived from the Mac mini, in that the configuration had been well tested in the latter, including by actual users
• the relatively small price difference is significant as evidence that laptops are getting very cheap indeed.

I have since edited Mac mini to this effect, maybe that is a better place. It seems to me that if we are comparing the MacBook and MacBook Pro, which are technically more different from each other, then this comparison (MB vs. Mm) should be included. However, if you would prefer to keep articles comparison-free, I am happy for that guideline to be universally followed.

Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. My rationale was firstly, that a section about MB vs MBP doesn't have anything to do with Mac Minis. Secondly, your sentence cited the difference between the Mm and MB ($300) as the price of mobility, but you forgot about the display, keyboard and trackpad, which are extras that the MB has over the Mm, so the sentence seemed a bit redundant, considering. But adding the point to the Mm article is a good idea.

I suppose I could also argue that the Mac Mini is nothing more than a box-shaped laptop without a screen, keyboard or mouse, and so possibly isn't the best choice for a comparison of the price of desktops vs laptops. But I won't argue that. :) I'm not against comparisons, by the way. --Baryonic Being 09:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I originally thought that mentioning again the display, keyboard, touchpad and battery could be seen as insulting people's intelligence, so I didn't dwell on it. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've now somewhat unconventionally put in a sentence with the link to the appropriate section of the Mac mini article in a footnote. I hope someone has a better solution for this. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Somebody removed your comparison section from the Mac Mini article. I, meanwhile, have looked at the Mac mini's specs and I think it's all a coincidence. For a start, the low-end Mac Mini has a Core Solo processor. The high-end Mac mini has a SuperDrive, but the low-end MacBook does not. It also has a larger HDD than the low-end MacBook. So, the $300 price difference includes the screen, keyboard, trackpad, 20GB less space, the loss of DVD-RW functionality and 170MHz more processing speed. That's not really comparable. Unless you can prove that Apple genuinely wanted the specs of the MacBook to be based on those of the top-end Mac Mini, I don't think there's really a point here. Although I suppose you could still cite the rather small price difference of $300 as evidence that Apple is no longer assigning so much of a premium to mobility, but even then, this is due to a price increase on the Mac Mini, not a price decrease of any of their laptops, so that statement could be misleading. --Baryonic Being 11:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree. Apple simply uses Intel's most current off-the-shelf components in their low-end computers, which happen to be the GMA 950, the Core Duo/Solo, plus their EFI boot system. Now, if the two were based on the same logic board this would be interesting, but that is not the case as far as I know. Mac mini noting that "the mini uses many components usually found in portable computers such as Apple's own MacBook" or words to that effect should suffice in my opinion. -- grm_wnr Esc 12:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have updated this article. I mentioned the Mac Mini with reference to the integrated graphics, which I thought was relevant to the differentiation of consumer and professional product lines. --Baryonic Being 13:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, what do you think of the idea of setting up a Comparison of Macintosh models article? There are lots of Comparison Of articles, after all, and I'm sure a lot of people would find this fun. --Baryonic Being 14:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Feel free to take the lead! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have started the article with a template ready. I filled in the first model as an example. If the layout needs changing or if any columns need adding, it would be best to do that first. --Baryonic Being 12:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Heat Issue

Hello people, is it appropriate to create a new section called Issues with macbook or heat issues. There has been reports that a small plastic strip covering the rear exhaust vents when you open the mabook, its causing excessive heat. The plastic strip was Apple's way to protect dust from getting inside the laptop. Also caution about using laptop on your thighs.

See reference [3]

Just a thought --Visik 11 June 2006

I don't have a strong opinion on this. I ended up thinking it was not notable (in contrast to the thermal paste issue which seems to affect the MBP more than the MB). Just a plastic strip that they forget to explicitly label with a "pull here" tab. On the other hand, it can be seen as representative of the many small issues that keep cropping up with Apple products, but that's bordering on original research. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not worth a special section - just a mention in the "Criticisms" section is fine. There's no need to create a whole section devoted to just one issue - until MacBooks start busting into flames like the old PowerBooks, and there's no evidence of that yet. :P. –- kungming·2 | ^{(Talk·Contact)} 05:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Price differences

For clarification, the stock black MacBook is identical in terms of specs to the white midrange MacBook - with the sole exception of the 80GB hard drive in the black MacBook. The price difference is $200. However, if one upgrades the midrange white MacBook with an 80GB hard drive, then the price difference is $150. This is in reply to some recent edits which confused the price differences between the two. See the MacBook on the Apple Store here for more info. –- kungming·2 | ^{(Talk·Contact)} 06:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Discoloration

I added "reportedly" to the blurb about Apple replacing/fixing discolored MacBooks only because there's been no official release or knowledge base article on Apple's website yet. My own MacBook is affected by the discoloration, and my local Apple Store is in fact taking care of it. raekwon 00:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

We need a picture of this. I may be taking one in the next few days. Has anyones Macbook discolored...red-ish? I've only seen yellow or brown stains, but my MacBook looks pink!? Whats up with that? --Me-pawel 01:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Asustek

Does it deserve mention that MacBooks are made by Asustek? (Corby 02:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC))

Nah, that would destroy the myth of Apple's superior engineering.

I think it should be said somewhere --BJ 19:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for delisting

Hi all,

I am delisting this article because it reads sort of like a sales pamphlet. For example, the sentence "The MacBook was introduced on May 16, 2006 to immediate availability in all United States." This raises the question was the MacBook not released outside the United States? The article lacks insight into the product's success, its marketing and technical details beyond those available through the Apple website. It does list a few customer issues which is good but overall I feel the article can be improved if it is to become a good article. If you disagree with this delisting you may ask for a review here or if you have made changes to the article to address these issues you can renominate it here. Please don't be discouraged, this article is valuable part of Wikipedia but it just does not meet the criteria for a good article.

Cedars 05:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Laptop Vs. Notebook

Changed "laptop" to "notebook". Apple notebook computers are NOT laptop computers. See Apple press releases for details. Their computers run too hot for normal use as a laptop. Jgw 20:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have a Macbook and it works fine as a laptop, Apple just changed the wording to save their ass from lawsuits. --BJ 19:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Catergories

Why does the Macbook have its own catergory? --BJ 21:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Random Shut Downs

Apple has released an update for Macbooks that experience RSD (random shut downs). It lets the fans run on high speed for about 10 seconds. I think we should put this in, but I don't understand how a software like this can solve a Hardware problem oO? (Me-pawel 00:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC))

It's already in the problems section. --BJ 02:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Problems

I clearned up some paragraphs making it easier to read, added a few sources, and I also added a few links to various websites covering the MacBook problems, including stainedbook.info, macbookrandomshutdowns.com, appledefects.com, and macintouch.com

Anyone else know of some sites that track problems? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.214.1 (talk) 21:46, November 1, 2006

I cleaned up your edit and refactored some of it, I hope you don't mind. BJ 05:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Speculation about space inside for GPU

Another possibility for not making use of a discrete graphics solution is the amount of space available on the inside of the MacBook. There is simply not as much room on the PCB or in the unit itself for a 1.25 square inch chip, which would require additional cooling, as there is in the MacBook Pro. The same applies to the Mac Mini.

This sounds really strange, remember that iBook was smaller (12") and packed GPU chip just fine. So did G4 Mac mini. i'd like someone to comment or source this otherwise I will remove it within two days.