Talk:MacBook Pro/Archive 2

This is Archive 2, which covers discussions from 2007.

Manufacturer
Manufacturer is Quanta, not Apple, so I've corrected it. There are dozens of sources on the internet that say this, and Quanta openly acknowledges it. If you find a better source, please go ahead. --72.229.114.117 02:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your additions. However that source names unnamed sources for its information. Thus the statement will need to be removed unless a better source, which offers substantial and clear evidence that this is indeed true can be found. I'll look myself and give you all a few days, otherwise, per policy, anything that could be disputed that is not sourced must go! Whitneykitty 20:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

There's been no new sources offered and thus the statement has been deleted until a verifiable source is found. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the good thing is that the article no longer claims that Apple themselves manufactures the MacBook Pro. Almost none of the mainstream labels build their own. --72.229.114.117 03:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Powerbooks were manufactured d by Quanta Computer, while MacBooks are manufactured both by Quanta Computer and Alpha Tech. Still I do no find any reliable reference on this. --gala.martin ( what? ) 23:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

every asian manufacturer has once assemble mac's, i am pretty certain the unibody is assembled by Asustech. Markthemac (talk) 05:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Dual Channel
From the article: The system will use the "Dual Channel" feature if memory is installed in exact pairs, which will result in higher performance if both memory chips are exactly the same. I read that the motherboards support Intel Flex technology (or something similar sounding), which makes matched sticks of ram irrelevant. Maybe someone who knows for sure can comment on this. Right now the article could be incorrect.

It's an important distinction, because the current line of MacBook Pros come with two memory layouts: 2x1GB (2GB total) and 1x2GB + 1x1GB (3GB total). If the article is correct, then "upgrading" to 3GB will reduce the memory bandwidth.

Mini disc?
The term Mini disc means something specific. I think the article is trying to say "CDs of nonstandard sizes." Can anyone see a flaw in this change? --Steven Fisher 21:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have corrected it to Mini CD. — Aluvus   t / c  00:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, but now what we're left with is that you can't put a Mini CD in a slot-loading CD drive. This is hardly a MacBook Pro-specific problem; very few slot-loading drives can accept a Mini CD. I'm not saying this point should be removed, but I think it needs to be reworded. --Steven Fisher 17:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Binary prefixes
Recently changes have been made to this article to use binary prefixes (KiB, MiB, kibibyte, mebibyte etc). 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 10:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

** MESSY ARTICLE !**
Added clean-up tag, because to me, this article is quite sloppy compared to that of the PowerBook or especially of that of the MacBook which has been rated a good article by a peer review. With some work, there's no reason why this article would not also be a good one WP:WIAGA.

Further, this page simply reads like a copy of what's on Apple.com with no real substance about the computer at all. It doesn't talk about what's different from the PowerBook and why it's good/bad. There's nothing about how the product has been received by the critics. The issues section is uses links to forums as references and it uses other unverifiable sources. I think that overall this article simply needs some TLC, bullets converted to tables or prose, etc. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 10:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The structure of the Specifications section is also quite bizarre. --Steven Fisher 17:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what I mean actually, it all needs put into tables for readability. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This needs serious tidying up. Can an experienced wikipedian actually bother to do this, as many non-decent updates seem to have made many "facts" on here dubious or plainly wrong (especially with many current figures quoted being wrong or not upto date enough to be useful). ...please SOMEONE finally do it, it's been moaned about for 18 months now yet is still gibberish in many places :-0 -- Jimthing (talk) 12:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Santa Rosa <-> Crestline Chipset Issue
'''Firstly, Santa Rosa is a platform, not a chipset. The chipset required by the Santa Rosa platform is Crestline.'''

Secondly, according to WP Page for Centrino a computer requires three things to be compliant with the Santa Rosa platform:
 * an Intel C2D 'Merom' (or 'Penryn' once they arrive) processor with Socket P
 * an Intel Mobile 965 Express chipset 'Crestline'
 * an Intel 802.11a/b/g/n WiFi chipset 'Kedron'

However, no existing Mac that uses the C2D processor and the 965 chipset (iMac, MacBook Pro) has the Kedron WiFi card. Instead Apple uses an Atheros card. For example from this is the identifier on the 2.4 GHz MBP:

0b:00.0 Network controller: Atheros Communications, Inc. AR5418 802.11a/b/g/n Wireless PCI Express Adapter (rev 01)

Therefore, Macs are not part of the Santa Rosa platform even though they fulfill the other two requirements. This is also the reason Apple doesn't use the Centrino label. It is incorrect to call any Mac generation "Santa Rosa". A correct naming would be for example "C2D MacBook Pro Crestline" in order to to distinguish it from the C2D 2.16/2.33 GHz variant.

'''Santa Rosa is not a chipset, it's a platform. Macs do not use Santa Rosa platform, they use a Crestline chipset.'''--129.129.128.152 07:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Wonderful arguments, but we need some references to support it. Original research (what you've done) does not count on Wikipedia as it's unsourced. All the Mac sites claim the MBP uses Santa Rosa, but if you can find evidence from a good source to refute that claim (stating the MBP uses Crestline) then there's no issue at all since it's sourced. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, so since a couple of web pages publish wrong information (most likely due to sloppy use of Intel code names), WP should echo that misinformation? Shall I go out and write my own web page and put the above comments on it just so WP can cite a page? I'm sorry, but frankly that's a bunch of baloney. Saying a MBP uses Santa Rosa is wrong, plain and simple. It's perfectly evident that we're dealing with misinformation no matter how wide spread it is. Source or not, there is no reason for WP to repeat these false claims.--129.129.128.152 11:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually - just to put the argument aside - two important citations have already been given: The WP Centrino page lists what Santa Rosa is, that it is a platform and that this platform uses the Crestline chipset. The external link I gave above shows what WiFi adapter the MBP actually uses. These two sources show that the MBP cannot be using the Santa Rosa platform. There are your sources.--129.129.128.152 11:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What references are there to support the claim that this is a Santa Rosa product? Apple certainly doesn't say so.  I would wager that 99% of the Mac sites you mention have no idea what is required for the Santa Rosa platform or any other Centrino platform, so it is hard to take their word for it.  And not a single one of the sentences in this article claiming it is a Santa Rosa product actually contains a citation as such.  So no, the claim that it is a Santa Rosa product is not adequately sourced.  And given that a number of sources (here's another) indicate the wireless chipset is made by Atheros, which would mean the MPB is not a Centrino product, at the very least it is obvious that all references to Santa Rosa and/or Centrino need to be removed.  —  Aluvus   t / c  16:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It really isn't much of an issue people, simply compromise on the wording. It's technically called crestline chipset, which is part of the Santa Rosa platform. Thus why not include that statement in the article and be done with it? Doing otherwise is disregarding the entire Mac community who refers to these models as Santa Rosa models, but on the flip side not mentioning Crestline would be incorrect. Therefore add both, which makes the article complete, technically correct and puts an end to this bitch fest. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nja247 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that Santa Rosa has nothing to with Macs. You can use a Crestline chipset w/o touching Santa Rosa. What you need to understand is: SR *requires* Crestline, but Crestline does not require SR. Macs have never been Centrino compliant and now with SR they still aren't. They don't need to be. There is no reason to drag SR into Macs. It causes nothing but confusion. Just because one or two websites made this mistake does not mean WP has to make the same mistake.--84.73.140.109 14:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point Sir and are making a mountain out of a mole hill. You're technically correct, however so are are majority of Mac users who believe the MacBook Pro uses the Santa Rosa platform -- since it does! There is no reason whatsoever for you to continue to disagree with what is a reasonable compromise. The statement that the Macbook Pro "uses the Crestline chipset, which is part of the SR platform" not only resolves all issues, but it more thourough and encyclopedic, which Wikipedia is. Problem solved, now please review Wikipedia guidelines and accept this compromise as you nor no one owns this article WP:OWN. Wikipedia is built upon verifiability and consensous and I believe this has been reached, so think hard about it before continuing this. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. The Mac DOES NOT USE SANTA ROSA. As numerous people have already pointed out here, SR requires an Intel WiFi adapter which no Mac comes with. Macs therefore ARE NOT SANTA ROSA. Using the Santa Rosa moniker for Macs is wrong and causes unnecessary confusion. If you want to use Intel code names for the 'guts' you should use Crestline since that is what Macs actually use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.140.109 (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to go back and forth between this article and Intel iMac as your argument is the same on both. Thus to keep it in one place, see my response to your reply please see the bottom of the page. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I must point out that saying the Macbook Pro "uses the Crestline chipset, which is part of the SR platform" is not really technically correct in terms of what it implies. "Is part of the Santa Rosa platform" implies that there are a number of products that are individually a part of that platform.  "Is a piece of" would be less ambiguous but clunky.  And it is emphatically not technically correct to "believe the MacBook Pro uses the Santa Rosa platform".  It does not.  A technically correct phrasing would be:
 * "The Macbook Pro was revised [...] to use the Intel 965 Express chipset [which needs to be verified]. Because this chipset was introduced with Intel's Santa Rosa Centrino platform, and is used in many notebooks that are part of that platform, this version of the Macbook Pro is often refered to by the media [links] as a Santa Rosa product.  However, because it does not use one of Intel's approved wireless networking chipsets [cite], it cannot be considered a Centrino product."
 * There is no need to refer to the chipset by its codename now that it is out and the product name is sufficiently clear. Additionally, I must say that repeatedly reverting the anon's changes on the belief that they are not adequately sourced, in order to reinsert claims that are also not adequately sourced, is really not the way to do things.  "Verifiable but wrong" is still wrong.  Claiming a consensus exists on edits you just made and which no one else has endorsed is also not great.  And finally, even if the MPB did meet all the criteria of a Santa Rosa product, the fact that Apple does not apply the Centrino brand to it would mean that at most we could say it "contains the components required in Intel's Santa Rosa Centrino platform, but does not carry the Centrino branding".  For something to "be a Santa Rosa product" requires Intel's rubber stamp.  I am posting this here and not at the Intel iMac page largely because that talk page is a godawful mess already.  —  Aluvus   t / c  20:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Your claim that the current MacBook Pro is not Santa Rosa lacks verifiability. For instance, no reliable sources have been put forward advancing an opinion on the wireless chipset in the MacBook Pro one way or the other.  Forum postings are not reliable sources.  But even if you had sources for this, taking that information, combining it with information about Santa Rosa's supposed requirements (you would also need contemporaneous and non-WP sources for this), and drawing the conclusion you wish to draw about the iMac MacBook Pro is un-allowed original research.  (Not to mention a plethora of sources already say the MacBook Pro is Santa Rosa).  Your next step is to find sources that discuss the iMac MacBook Pro while making the controversial claim about the iMac MacBook Pro you wish to support.  Wikipedia is not right or wrong.  Wikipedia is quite simply verifiability. -GnuTurbo 21:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No time to reply long-form, but shortly: 1. Sources on the MacBook Pro's wireless chipset are above. 2. Centrino requirements are available from Intel (they all require an Intel wireless chipset of some sort).  3. I've said nothing about the iMac.  4. Lots of people saying something doesn't make it true, and "verifiable but wrong" is no way to do anything.  5. Information that is false is wrong, regardless of whether it is in Wikipedia, a textbook, or a street sign.  —  Aluvus   t / c  22:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Corrected iMac to MacBook Pro in my previous post. -GnuTurbo 22:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, web forums are not sources. Combining information from two source in a new and original way is original research (your sources do not individually say the MacBook Pro is not Santa Rosa).  You cannot include information that is not verifiable under the policies of Wikipedia.  It does not matter if it is wrong or if it is right.  Without proper sourcing and verifiability, under Wikipedia's rules, you cannot include it. -GnuTurbo 22:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The link I provided above was to a MacBook Pro teardown, not a forum. And using WP:NOR not only to exclude information but to push for the inclusion of other, also unverified information is a bit daft.  Claiming "it doesn't matter if it is wrong" is exemplary of what is wrong with WP:V as it is often interpreted.  It saddens  me that someone would expend so much energy citing policy and reverting rather than pitch in to find adequate sourcing for either claim.  If your concern is that more sources are needed in order to avoid OR, then why not look for more sources?  Why not look for an iron-clad source to indicate that the MPB really does fulfill the requirements of Santa Rosa, thereby ending all debate? —  Aluvus   t / c  01:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Source after source confirms the claim the current MacBook Pro is Santa Rosa. You know how to Google.  Even Apple itself (and thanks for finding that second page) says the MacBook Pro is Santa Rosa.  At this point, you have no sources, at least not sources that Wikipedia recognizes, that disputes this claim.  Your link is not even the current MacBook Pro model.  But had it been, the no original research policy prevents drawing new conclusions.  From the no original research policy (read carefully):


 * I have done my job. -GnuTurbo 03:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Apple says Santa Rosa
Apple's developer website refers to the MacBook Pro as Santa Rosa. developer.apple.com. -GnuTurbo 22:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The 4 links on that page all point to one page, the page for the Compatibility Labs. That page identifies "Santa Rosa" as the codename for the Core 2 Duo processors used in the MPBs at the Labs, which is verifiably not what that codename refers to.  Oddly, they get the codename right ("Merom") for the iMacs.  Apple's translators have apparently made the same error elsewhere on press releases (at the introduction of the Merom MPBs, though the error does not appear in the English version).  Shall we incorporate every company's errata? —  Aluvus   t / c  02:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for finding another page where Apple refers to the MacBook Pro as Santa Rosa. However, your subsequent page does not say anything one way or the other.  Since Apple is the authority on this matter, and Apple has spoken, the MacBook Pro is, according to sources Wikipedia allows, Santa Rosa.  -GnuTurbo 02:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, since Apple's own information has been proven to be erroneous, although Apple has stated "Santa Rosa", we have clearly contradictory evidence from Apple, as well. It's called "The Hardware That They Sell That Does Not Meet Intel's Requirements For The Centrino Platform", and it clearly indicates that the MBP, contrary to Apple's own statements, does NOT have Santa Rosa. Butterfly0fdoom 02:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You need to read the no original research policy. The nutshell version is reproduced above.  Pay particular attention to the third bullet point:

Interpretations and syntheses must be attributed to reliable sources that make these interpretations and syntheses
 * The sources say the MacBook Pro is Santa Rosa. You have not given one source that claims otherwise. -GnuTurbo 03:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What you are doing is exactly the type of abuse of sources that makes WP:V into a problem. "Apple" has not stated the MPB is Santa Rosa; a small handful of people that work for it have made (common) mistakes.  Spinning that into some sort of official Apple rubber-stamp is dishonest.  As for whether the Intel page demonstrates that Santa Rosa is not in fact the codename for a processor, well: "Santa Rosa processor technology is comprised of a next-generation Intel® Core™2 Duo processor, the Mobile Intel® 965 Express chipset family, Intel® Next-Gen Wireless-N Network Connection, Intel® 82566MM and 82566MC Gigabit Network Connection, and optional Intel® Turbo memory." (also listed at the previously-supplied link).  The pages at Apple.com "support" your case only through their errors.
 * You are playing very loosely with sources when you cite "the sources". Apple proper has never claimed any of its products to be Centrino products (Santa Rosa or otherwise).  They have certainly not "spoken" as you claim.  Apple, the manufacturer of the device, and Intel, the owner of all Centrino trademarks, are the only ones able to definitively declare that the MPB is a Centrino product, and neither has done so.  If blogs and reviewers make such a claim, it is worth noting that they have done so, but unless they are able to cite someone from within Apple or Intel then that is an inadequate source.  The fact that most such reviewers seem to mistakenly believe Santa Rosa is either a processor or a motherboard chipset severely undercuts their usefulness in this matter.  Again, why not stop complaining about OR and actually seek out an authoritative source that definitively states that the MPB is a Centrino product?  —  Aluvus   t / c  04:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop relying on original research and I will stop complaining. Apple says the MacBook Pro is Santa Rosa and that is the claim I am making (and supporting through multiple reliable published sources). You do realize your reasoning is flawed when you discount a source as erroneous because it makes a claim with which you disagree?  An opinion is not a fact. -GnuTurbo 04:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And where is the opinion you claim we are using to back our claims? The Centrino page and physical evidence that reside in Apple's own product clearly refute your claims. You have yet to actually disprove what others have shown you, whereas your evidence has been clearly refuted. Show us something substantial to back your claims aside from members of the media that erroneously described the MacBook Pro and the iMac. Butterfly0fdoom 04:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Opinions are not facts. Your claim is not backed because you rely on original research ("physical evidence") and other WP pages, among other problems.  You need sources for your claim. I would like to see one source that makes the claim you wish to add to the article. -GnuTurbo 05:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I discount a source as erroneous when a vastly superior source (in this case Intel's official press release) directly indicates that it is in error. The Apple page you are so keen to cite indicates Santa Rosa is a processor; Intel strongly disagrees.  For all your posturing about original research, you seem to be neglecting that you have yet to collect any reliable, authoritative sources that indicate the MPB is a Centrino product.  Apple and Intel both have open archives of press releases.  If the article is to include the claim that the MPB is a Santa Rosa product (as you have argued), and that claim's truth is in dispute (as it obviously is), then that claim should be adequately referenced.  And although I'm not directly replying to the comment, I should note that linking to a generic Google search as "sources" is utterly ridiculous in any context. —  Aluvus   t / c  05:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * From the utterly-ridiculous Google search, first page:

Santa Rosa comes to the Mac: a review of the new MacBook Pro: Page 1 arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/macbook-pro-santa-rosa.ars MacBook Pro "Santa Rosa" - 3D Gaming www.barefeats.com/santarosa.html AppleInsider | Intel rolls out Santa Rosa notebook platform, Macs ... www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/05/09/intel_rolls_out_santa_rosa_notebook_platform_macs_to_benefit.htm MacDailyNews - MobileTechReview: New Apple MacBook Pro Santa Rosa ... www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/ mobiletechreview_new_apple_macbook_pro_santa_rosa_buy_it Macworld: Editors' Notes: MacBook Pro knows the way to Santa Rosa www.macworld.com/weblogs/editors/2007/06/mbpupdate/index.php Apple MacBook Pro Laptops Push Santa Rosa Platform - Digital Life ... www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/06/_apple_macbook.html Hardmac.com : Le "Macbidouille" in English www.hardmac.com/news/2007-06-06 MobileTechReview.com Discussion Forums: New MacBook Pro Santa Rosa ... www.mobiletechreview.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Board=news&Number=27772 Mac Rumors: Santa Rosa-Based MacBook Pro 'Very Soon'... Next Week? www.macrumors.com/2007/05/09/santa-rosa-based-macbook-pro-very-soon-next-week Unboxing - Santa Rosa MacBook Pro - SlashGear www.slashgear.com/unboxing-santa-rosa-macbook-pro-055604.php
 * Page after page of search results follow this about the MacBook Pro Santa Rosa. Even Apple applies the term Santa Rosa to the MacBook Pro.  Now, I would like to see one source that makes the claim you wish to add to the article. -GnuTurbo 14:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * GnuTurbo, from the links people here have supplied you and together with the reasoning you claim is OR, how can you honestly still believe the MBP is compliant with Santa Rosa/Centrino? Doe it not strike you that Intel has never called any Mac a "Centrino" product? Does it not strike you that Apple has never used a "Centrino" sticker? Does it not strike you that System Profiler reports a "Broadcom" WiFi firmware version rather than one from Intel? All this evidence points to the simple fact that some people simply mixed up code names. So how then can you be so hell bent on citing these obviously misinformed sources? How come you aren't trying to come up with a nice source to provide what everybody here can clearly see with his/her own eyes: Santa Rosa requires something Macs don't have. Why don't you put your energy towards finding this source which will ultimately increase the quality of this WP page and prevent further confusion?--84.73.140.109 07:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have looked. The source is not there.  Can you provide one source? -GnuTurbo 14:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Here it is: TidBITS: Confusion Over Santa Rosa: What's in a Name? --84.73.140.109 07:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a note to 84.73.140.109: Intel does not market or promote Apple products, and Apple does NOT use stickers! Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well to me that has always been perfectly clear. There were others here who didn't have their facts straight though. --84.73.140.109 11:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Interim Solution
Until this issue is resolved, I will be removing all refences to Crestline and/or Santa Rosa. If anyone is to add such references (or revert the article), I will remove the references and request an admin have this article locked until the issue is resolved. Butterfly0fdoom 05:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'd prefer not including chipset information at all compared to spreading misinformation.--84.73.140.109 07:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this will need to be the permenant solution, as I can reference Santa Rosa all day, but not Crestline. The only real source for Crestline (not a forum post) still explicitly states "part of Santa Rosa platform". My wording for the article would have been: "based on the Crestline chipset, which is part of the Santa Rosa platform". This is technically correct and should have satisfied all parties, but people are being extraordinarly picky on this. The fact that "Crestline" on Wikipedia takes you to the Santa Rosa platform article should have made this a non-issue.

Therefore removing chipset/platform information and citing the models how Apple does is the best solution MBP's and iMac's Nja247 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * People are being 'picky' about this because so much damage has already been done. The web is full of posts where people claim the new Macs are SR. That is just as wrong as claiming they are Centrino certified. There is no reason to use SR when talking about Macs unless maybe when linking on WP (because Crestline only appears on the Centrino page). Using SR will only increase the already wide spread confusion. Using the chipset is also not an especially good solution (because which iMac user actually knows the code name of the chipset and/or actually cares?) but at least it offers some way to distinguish the two revs that come with C2D and it is at least TECHNICALLY CORRECT. An alternative would be to use "800 MHz FSB" because that would also distinguish the new models from the first C2D generation. I think in the end it's a good idea to just use "Mid 2007" as Apple does. It doesn't require knowledge of any code names and will remain correct even if Apple decides to put out another C2D rev in 2007. AFAIC we don't necessarily need to talk about the chipset used. Of course we could include chipset code names for the sake of completeness, but then we need to elaborate: Make clear that Apple uses Crestline and Merom, but not Kedron, so while they use some parts of SR, they aren't using all and hence it's neither SR nor Centrino compliant. --129.129.128.64 14:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nja247, if the "uses Crestline, which is part of the Santa Rosa/Centrino platform" line was used earlier on, this wouldn't have escalated to this level. But I guess you, I, and the anon 84.73.140.109 can agree here to just stick to using Apple's terminology if Early/Mid/Late (year) and leaving out all references to Centrino (since, while Apple uses parts of the Centrino platform, they don't use all of it, and thus cannot advertise themselves as using the Centrino platform, and they don't advertise themself as using the Centrino platform). So if GnuTurbo can agree to this as the permanent solution, then it'll be finalized. Butterfly0fdoom 15:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 129.129.128.64: What is this "damage" you talk about? There is nothing wrong with calling the MacBook Pro Santa Rosa.  The statement is well-supported by numerous sources.  -GnuTurbo 15:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The very fact that there are several sites claiming the new Macs are Santa Rosa is ample evidence of the damage. Why insinuate that these Macs comply with Centrino when everybody can easily check for themselves that these new Mac do not come with Kedron and hence do not fulfill the requirements of Santa Rosa? This misinformation is causing confusion. There's the damage: Spreading misinformation rather than the proper facts against all better knowledge. Citing sources that claim the new Macs are SR (which we *know* is wrong) is actually nothing else than providing evidence for this damage. --129.129.128.64 18:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not "damage" for people to refer to something by a name that gives them information about the thing. The iMac is not entirely aluminum yet people call it an aluminum iMac.  Is this wrong?  Is this damage?  I do not think so.  There is a reason why these sources all refer to the MacBook Pro as Santa Rosa and it is not a mistake.  It is how human language is used.  Intel does not get to decide this.  You do not get to decide this.  The world does, and when the world gives us ample published sources in support of these words as applied to the MacBook Pro, we, the editors, can add these words to the Wikiepdia article on this topic. -GnuTurbo 18:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You're hiding behind semantics. The facts remain: Santa Rosa requires Kedron. Saying the MBP is Santa Rosa implies that the MBP comes with Kedron. Since we can all easily verify that it doesn't we know AS A FACT that saying it is Santa Rosa is simply FALSE. This is not 'human language' (as if there were any other), but simply a wrong claim. WP is an encyclopedia, i.e. it's supposed to be accurate. False claims have no justification here. It's more than surprising to see you put so much energy into holding onto a claim which has been clearly shown to be false. Obviously you care less about the actual facts than sticking with what you once considered right. It's a shame you can't put your energy towards making WP more accurate. That said, this is all quite irrelevant because the article has now taken the right direction: the references to Santa Rosa and Centrino have been removed. The article is now more accurate, technically correct and hence my goal has been achieved. --129.129.128.64 20:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * B0D: I said more than 10 hours ago on the Template:Apple hardware since 1998 talk page I have no problem with you applying the year part naming so long as you apply it consistently and use sources. -GnuTurbo 15:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

So we agrees. Case closed. I don't want to be seeing any more Centrino references, or else. Butterfly0fdoom 15:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

2.6 Chip model
The article says X7800, however is there a source confirming this? A 2.6 GHz Core 2 on 800 MHz bus for notebook could be the T7800 or the X7800. I think it's the latter and not the former as stated on the article because 1) the Core 2 Extreme (X7800) uses has a higher TDP than the T7800 and it costs a hell of a lot more. Both chips use socket P, 800 MHz, 4MB cache. Can anyone confirm somehow? Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nja247 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It will be a Core 2 Duo T7800. The simple reason being that the Intel stopped selling the 7800 as Merom XE when the 2.8 GHz X7900 Merom XE was launched in September. The original July Merom line up went up to T7700 at 2.4 GHz and the Merom XE part was the X7800 at 2.6 GHz. In September Intel launched the X7900 at 2.8 GHz and so the Merom XE X7800 became the Merom T7800 - it's a marketing thing. Intel's quick reference sheet can be found here: --84.73.140.109 06:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Intel doesn't actually sell the X7800 anymore: and . So I think we can be sure of what Apple's using on the current MBP. Any objections if I now replace X7800 with T7800?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.33.126.163 (talk) 08:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)