Talk:Mac (computer)/Archive 7

History split
User:Kozuch suggested that the history section be split, with the detail added to a daughter article. I lean against this idea because I don't think that it can be done very well. There's the detailed text present in the article, and some very summarized information in the lead, but I have yet to really see anything in between. The section is long, yes, but what exactly can we cut? There's not even a detailed summary at the head of section to expand. If someone can produce a draft to convince me otherwise, great, but currently I don't see this as a viable option. Please leave the article relatively unmodified until we can work out consensus (or show that everyone disagrees with me).--HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I see a new page History of Macintosh was created. But why was the content copied and not moved??? Placing merge tag to resolve duplication of content. It is also needed to write an intro for the other article which could be possibly used as a content for this section here.--Kozuch (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Macintosh/Mac name
The first line: "Macintosh, or for newer models, Mac…" What "newer models"? We were calling it "Mac" back around the second model, the 512K "Fat Mac". Then the "Mac Plus", "Mac II", "Mac LC", etc. etc. Now, I understand we're only supposed to call them by the single name "Mac", which isn't an abbreviation for anything, but surely there's a better way to phrase this opening remark… --Makaristos (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The colloquial abbreviation we used in the 1980s was "Mac", yes, but the official names of the products were Macintosh 512K, Macintosh Plus, Macintosh II, Macintosh LC, and so on. The first Apple computers to be officially called "Mac" instead of "Macintosh" were the iMac and Power Mac G4, released in 1998 and 1999, respectively. -/- Warren 05:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's ten years ago. How "new" are "newer models"? --Makaristos (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's documented in the article. Please read it.  -/- Warren 08:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I know it's the internet, but the snark is totally uncalled for; calm down. What I am referring to is not documented in the article; the earliest Mac(intosh) models are referred to as "Mac", as in this passage: "Bud Tribble, a Macintosh programmer, was interested in running the Lisa’s graphical programs on the Macintosh, and asked Smith whether he could incorporate the Lisa’s Motorola 68000 microprocessor into the Mac while still keeping the production cost down." So, back to my original point: I'm not sure the qualifier "newer" for the models referred to by the moniker "Mac", as opposed to the fully qualified "Macintosh", is the best way to frame this point. --Makaristos (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You can use either form form for the earlier models, but the models released from 1998 onwards, in the "neo-Jobsian" era, are (more) exclusively just Macs. If that sounds vague, that's because there is no defining line.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There was a clear decision to rebrand all product instances of Macintosh to Mac several years ago, some time after Steve Jobs returned in 1997. The introduction of the Power Mac G4 in 1999 marked the final elimination of "Macintosh" from the product lines. Today, the term at Apple is used in historical contexts, only lingering in areas not often witnessed by end-users and would-be customers. (The long-time periodical Macintosh Products Guide did go unchanged, as did the expansion of "ACTM" to "Apple Certified Macintosh Technician.") It is clear, however, that Apple rebranded Macintosh to reflect what had long been the most common usage, Mac.
 * So, for nearly a decade, the authoritative name as well as the most common name for the product lines has been Mac. Consideration should be given to reflecting this in WP, up to and including the naming of pages. The term Macintosh will increasingly tend to imply the "classic" non-UNIX OS and Motorola-based hardware, to the exclusion of Intel-based hardware and Mac OS X in particular. — RVJ (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest moving this page to Mac (computer brand). For the last ten years, there have been no products named Macintosh, and Apple's official term for their computer series is now Mac. — W aterfox  ( talk ) 16:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The original computer was labeled "Macintosh". The computers for several years were labeled "Macintosh".  We're covering more than just recent models.  Leave it alone. - Denimadept (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If it was that way, Apple Inc. would still be named Apple Computer. &mdash; W aterfox  ( talk ) 21:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That name change was official, to the point of a special SEC filing to make it legal. But Apple never said, "we're calling them Macs now," they just started calling them Macs around the time Jobs came back, making the issue more complicated. Furthermore, the title has less competition with other topics (e.g. Big Mac, Mac n' cheese). It is the least ambiguous. HereToHelp (talk to me) 22:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Buy any new Mac, start it up, and you'll find your hard drive is named Macintosh HD Dpaanlka (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Go on any Mac with a recent version of Mac OS, go in the Apple menu, and you'll see an option called About This Mac. — Waterfox ( talk ) 22:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Was there ever an official statement from Apple that the name Macintosh was deprecated? If not, I don’t see a reason for a change here. —Frungi (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm aware. http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/guidelinesfor3rdparties.html does say that "You may not use the Mac trademark standing alone except to denote or refer to the Apple Macintosh product line." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantergraph (talk • contribs) 18:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Both Mac and Macintosh are correct names for any Mac/Macintosh computer. However, it would be more accurate to use Mac to refer to models that use Mac in their name (iMac, Macbook Air) and to use Macintosh for models that use Macintosh in their name (Macintosh 512k, Macintosh Classic). As for iBooks and Powerbooks, they could be referred to as either, but I'd say iBooks are Macs, Powerbooks that came out before the first iBook as Macintoshes, and Powerbooks that came out afterwards as Macs. Ratburntro44 (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Apple Inc de facto has changed the name of the computer family to "Mac", I'm sure the article should either be renamed or split to two articles. Old models should be left here, but the latest ones can be listed in 'Mac (computer)'. George Parastatidis (talk) 08:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Today most of the people simply don't associate 'Macinthosh' name with any of Apple models. George Parastatidis (talk) 09:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion concerning display prominence
All current Macs do label their Hard Drives "Macintosh HD," and although a certain Menu Bar Option under the Apple Logo does say "About This Mac," I would like to point out that a Desktop Icon is by definition more prominent than a Menu Bar Option, in the sense that it is already displayed without having already clicked on something else. Between the Icon/Menu Bar thing I just explained above, the fact that the full name "Macintosh" is used in several clauses of Apple's legal disclaimers on its own Website, and the fact that "Mac" has always been used at least as a colloquial abbreviation (yes, always, I've been a Macintosh user all my life and I'm 22), I'd say that these 3 facts taken together are a good argument to say that "Mac" is still just an abbreviation for "Macintosh," and that both terms are interchangeable. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Named after a type of apple?
"Macintosh" has always struck me as a very odd name to pick for a range of computers. What does a PC have to do with a raincoat?

Today, twenty years later, I stumble across the fact that they appear to be named after a kind of apple, the McIntosh Red. Now that makes more sense.

Am I just slow (definite possibility), or this is something British people aren't familiar with? Perhaps this should be mentioned in the article? I can't really think of a good place to put it though. It's quite tight and dense out there (not to mention featured)... GM Pink Elephant (talk) 22:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it would fit into the history - developement section. Question is: Is it speculation or is it true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.218.127.237 (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? Apple Computer? Macintosh is a kind of apple. The computers have long had an apple as logo. Of course it isn't speculation. It hardly needs citations either, but I'm sure some would disagree on that point. It's seems to me to be a very obvious fact. As far as I'm concerned that would be like demanding citations for the existence of New York City. --SentientParadox (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're replying to a 2 year old comment about the then-current computer with a comment about the logo? - Denimadept (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, he just hit the wrong edit link. I’ve taken the liberty of moving the comment. —Frungi (talk) 04:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is certainly a similarity between the names, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that one was inspired by the other. It could be a coincidence. Or it could be named after the raincoat. The apple is the most likely explanation IMO, but that doesn’t make it so. That’s why citations are necessary. —Frungi (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"Latest/Newest" Mac
Near the top of the page, the caption for a photograph of the 2008 iMac describes it as "Apple's newest Macintosh Computer". Near the bottom of the article, another caption describes the MacBook Air as "Apple's latest Mac".

Unless I'm missing some subtlety, these can't both be correct, and I would suggest that using words such as "newest" and "latest" to describe individual evolutions of electronic products in an encyclopaedia article is a bad idea because such descriptions will remain true for a few months at most. Eggybacon (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * IMac and MacBook Air are both hardware subseries of Macintoshes, and every subseries has its own very newest member as long as the subseries is still in production. As it happens, the iMac is a desktop, whereas the MacBook Air is a budget-model laptop without a CD burner/reader or even a thumb drive burner/reader, both of which are features that even most laptops now have. (However, it is very light in weight, hence its name.) The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Where did the "criticism" section go?
This entry used to have a couple of paragraphs of criticism about Mac products, which WP user "HereToHelp" has effectively deleted (in his words "I have removed (it), but added back the content elsewhere in the article". In fact, that content is nowhere to be seen in the entry anymore.  For example, I had added a reference to the fact that Apple clung to a single-button mouse format for years, despite the majority of consumers preferring multiple-button mouses, as an example of top-down thinking at Apple.  "HereToHelp" changed this to "Until 2005, Mac computers have shipped with a single-button mouse, largely because surveys showed users did not know which button to use", without even providing a citation to back this rather improbable claim.  If no one can justify why the Mac entry should not have a criticism section while the corresponding Windows entry has multiple criticism links, I'm going to revert the entry. If it gets "helped" into oblivion again, I'll apply for protection. Bricology (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But was the single-button mouse really a disadvantage? It's really a matter of opinion, and so such a thing shouldn't be included unless its fully justified. — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 10:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I entirely disagree that it's "a matter of opinion", as if all opinions were equal, or that one opinion on the positive side outweighs many on the negative. For example, MacWorld's editors have often criticized the one-button mouse.  Next, multiple-button mouses are quantifiably faster and can be used entirely singlehandedly.  Apple's alternative to the scrollwheel (or rather, its lack of same until the introduction of Mighty Mouse) made scrolling long pages much less convenient for Mac users than their scrollwheel-equipped counterparts.  Finally, it should be obvious from the fact that Apple has finally relented and produced a multiple-button mouse, ten years after it became standard equipment on PCs, that even they are convinced of the merits of multiple-button mouses.  The fact that there are no makers of single-button mouses for the PC platform adds further support.  (Interestingly, Steve Jobs wanted to make the first Apple mouse, in 1984, a 4-button mouse, but the Human Interface team convinced him that it would be too complicated for customers to figure out.)  Indeed, every justification I've seen for the single-button mouse comes back to Apple presuming that new users are going to be confused by multiple buttons.  In fact, the learning curve for most people on multiple-button mouses is very short, and learning keyboard shortcuts are at least as confusing.  This short-term *possible* advantage gets turned into a long-term handicap for most users.  But the single-button mouse issue isn't the only criticism commonly voiced about Apple products.  There has also been much criticism about peripheral ergonomics (puck mouse, cramped keyboard), inaccessibility of hardware (non-user-friendly access of say, the optical drive on a G5 iMac, heat build-up in same), etc.  Regardless, the fact is that there are no less than five WP entries for criticism of Windows.  Unless someone can explain why Windows uniquely deserves criticism while at the same time, Mac does not, I'm going to add or revert the criticism page. Bricology (talk) 23:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There should be a criticism section in general, provided the content in it is well cited. The various design decisions in the different evolutions of the Mac have certainly been criticized in reviews or press, going all the way back to "only 128k", "no hard drive", "single button mouse" of the launch Mac.  So it shouldn't be to hard to find. And other articles on Wikipedia have these types of sections as well, so its not completely unheard of.  Its only "personal opinion" (i.e. WP:OR) if there's no reliable source to include.  Otherwise, both criticism's and rebuttal's with valid references should be included, and that is the precedent on Wikipedia. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to second the need for a criticism section that is referenced and keeping in terms with WP standards. The goal is to provide a well-rounding presention of Macintosh history. There are people who strongly dislike the Mac, in its technical features, culture, etc. Mac enthusiasts may not agree with the assesment, but the criticism needs to be presented. This article feels like an adverstisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.165.156 (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I own 2 Mac and 4 PC (omg heresy !), and I felt really sad when I saw there was no criticism section, then I read the discussion page and I understood fanboy-ism is more powerful than Wikipedia. Criticism section (with history section) is most of the time the best part of wikipedia articles, it shows if Wikipedia did failed or not. ''* FYI, my pov is (excuse me for the swearing) : PC are pile of shit, yes. But Mac are not better, they are pile of shit too, in a different way, different taste, flavour. For years I'm maintaining Mac and PC (family, friends, ...), and the problem is always the user, not the tool (=> computer).'' Bring us back criticism section please :) --90.60.138.50 (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Still no "criticism" section? Well here is another entertainig one to add to the discussion. I read in a german newspaper magazine "FOCUS" some Jan 2010 ed. that Mac Fans suffer from the Stockholm_syndrome, wherein hostages express adulation and have positive feelings towards their captors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.218.127.237 (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * On criticism and opinion - any "criticism" section should not itself criticize Apple, but rather liste the most "common criticisms" such as the one-button mouse. Dpaanlka (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to remove date-autoformatting
Dear fellow contributors

MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether or not dates are autoformatted. MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.

There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:

Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text (using a script) in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony  (talk)  06:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm really not understanding this. Are we talking about how the dates autoformat to yyyy-mm-dd or something else? - Denimadept (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've come to an understanding of this. I'm strongly for date autoformatting.  If everyone voluntarily formatted their dates sanely, meaning YYYY-MM-DD, then I wouldn't care, but all too often people use the ridiculous Month Day, Year format, which has absolutely no benefits whatsoever and is harder to parse.  I find the "against" arguments to be VERY weak. - Denimadept (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think there's still some understanding to be got. YYYY-MM-DD is not permitted—at least not in the main text. See Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29 and Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29. Please ask if there's more you need to know. I don't watchlist this page, though.  Tony   (talk)  13:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Why does it support it?
I saw this:

"Market research indicates that Apple draws its customer base from a higher-income demographic than the mainstream PC market.[77] Steve Jobs speculates that “maybe a little less” than half of Apple’s customers are Republicans, “maybe more Dell than ours.”[78] This perception may or may not be accurate—several prominent conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh, are Mac users[79]—but it can only be reinforced by the company's pattern of political donations,[80] by Al Gore’s membership on its board,[81] and surely not least by Jobs’ own personal history.[82]"

But Al Gore is a Democrat, not a Republican, so how does it reinforce that perception? mike4ty4 (talk) 06:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The perception is that more Mac users are Democrats than Republicans. Limbaugh is a counterexample; Gore is an example. (This probably means that that sentence needs to be reworded.)--HereToHelp (talk to me) 14:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of fonts in Mac OS X
FYI. Ikip (talk) 07:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

14% Market Share
I marked this "clarify me"; the linked article doesn't make clear which market the figure refers to. I suspect that it's the U.S.; the worldwide figure is probably different. Ubcule (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Needs Wikification
I don't know if your article has been vandalized but needs a table and to be restructured (pics at the top). --Blueking12 (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you are seeing that needs to be wikified, but it's pretty heavily linked right now. If you see something that should be linked however, feel free to go in and fix it. As for the table, do you mean an infobox? There really isn't much that you could put in the infobox, Macintosh is a whole series of computers, you can't really pick one to list specs on. As for the images, I'm not sure what you are seeing as the issue.-- Terrillja  talk  16:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Can you be more specific? The images are placed where referenced by context. (Intentionally, all software screenshots are left-aligned.) The only thing I see is that the dates are linked, but there is an ArbCom injunction against changing that.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Apple Tablet
I haven't had time to read the whole of this article but I did a option+f search for the word 'tablet' because I wanted to know more about it and couldn't find anything here or anywhere on Wikipedia. Is the new Apple Tablet not mentioned here or is it going by a different name? I know there isn't a lot of info about it but I would have thought that what we do know about it would be included. Kurushi (talk) 20:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't know anything. Those who do know are under NDA.  Try a "rumors" site. - Denimadept (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up, I think I was doubly confused because it hadn't been mentioned even in the discussion pages. I didn't realise that it's actual existence was still unverified and that there is no evidence that it was ever or will ever be in production. A rumours site would be pointless because it was verified info that I was after (that's why I came to wiki in the first place). Cheers. Kurushi (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish we had more information too. Not yet. - Denimadept (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Mac intosh
Shouldn’t there be a mention of the fact that the name Macintosh has been deprecated in favor of Mac? And should the article be moved to something like Mac (personal computer)? —Frungi (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Why should it be moved? Although modern models are called "Mac", historically "Mac" has been considered an abbreviation for the Macintosh computer. Therefore, it is still proper to call it Macintosh. The article title should remain unchanged. Giltramirez (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. - Denimadept (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * True, but I thought I’d read somewhere that Apple had officially dropped the name Macintosh, and Mac was now the official name. But, no one else has heard this? —Frungi (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose a bit of research would help. Too bad we can't just call Apple's PR department and ask, as that'd be OR. - Denimadept (talk) 18:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Notationally, Apple doesn't sell any product called "Macintosh". But that's been true for awhile now, since iMac possibly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantergraph (talk • contribs) 18:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A. Do we really need 2 Talk Page Sections on a single subtopic?
 * B. All current computers in the line do label their Hard Drives "Macintosh HD." As for the official statement from Apple, you're probably thinking of the company dropping the word "Computer" from it's name, and in so many words: No. See my explanation in "Mac/Macintosh name" elsewhere on this Talk Page, where I even pointed to some of the fine print on Apple's own Website where the full name "Macintosh" is in fact mentioned. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Mac Mini Server Picture Incorrect
The mac mini pictured in the Mac Mini server cell has a slot for the optical drive, however the server version of the Mac Mini has no slot because of the dual hard drive setup. The picture should be updated to show the new design Xiphiaz (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. This has been done by another user. GoldRenet (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Protection
I requested temporary protection on this page when I noticed it cropping up on my watchlist, but now that it’s unprotected again, it seems to be getting regularly vandalized. Should permanent semi-protection be requested? —Frungi (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Why did they abandon the 680xx processors?
Anyone know the reason they picked to not go beyond the 68040 with the 68060, instead switching to powerPC? -OOPSIE- (talk) 08:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Likely "performance" and "cost". - Denimadept (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

PPC was part of a larger strategy against Intel. MS was supposed to port NT and presumably future Windows versions. Apple was looking to get on a 'standard' platform without having to switch to Intel as they later did. Look up CHRP and PReP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantergraph (talk • contribs) 17:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Incomprehensible caption
"The original "Bondi Blue" iMac G3, introduced in 1998. One of the first products produced under CEO Steve Jobs since he left the company in the mid eighties, it brought Apple back into profitability." WTF, one of the first products produced under Stefe Jobs since he left the company? This is just completely wrong grammar. Could somebody please fix this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.67.128.160 (talk) 19:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ I agree, the wording was awkward and too long, info about Jobs return is in the article body. I've made the caption more concise. Wine Guy   Talk  20:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Two button mouse
Wow, the history of Macs not supporting a two button mouse is quite inaccurate in this article. OS 9, the precursor to OS X, definitely supported two button mice and certainly had contextual menus. Apple itself didn't ship a two-button mouse until much later but you could buy a two button mouse and use it on OS 9. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.222.46 (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Find a source for this info and add it yourself. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Intro rework
I reworked the intro a bit to try to get rid of the context confusion. Basically, I'm trying to highlight - in the intro - the market share differences late-80s early-90s vs. the IMac's revitalization. It also helps as a psuedo-intro for the market share section in the article I think. Feel free to change or even revert if you think it was a bad edit. RN 08:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Article vision
Me and HereToHelp were discussing the vision and general direction of the article. It really needs a focus of some kind; i.e. how much to emphasize the hardware over software. We almost came to an agreement but (s)he had to take a wikibreak for a bit. Waiting until (s)he gets back to work on the article myself. RN 07:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion:

"Part of the problem is maintaining order when there aren't many involved editors to watch anonymous additions"

Yeah, I feel your pain - I haven't even logged in for a real edit for about 3 years, and have to spend a lot of time cleaning up 2 years or so worth of edits on Microsoft (teetering on becoming a FARC itself). It's sad to see the old FA tech articles decay.... you'd hope several editors would step in and at least try to keep the articles tidy but unfortunately it seems to be a one or two-man job still.

The actual FARC of macintosh....


 * 1) Ignore the comments concerning referencing in the lead section; mostly because some of the more serious reviewers if it goes back to FAC are going to stick it to you on (double)referencing in the lead section on every sentence, controversial or not.
 * 2) As mentioned David raises a lot of points - it really needs to be written in more of a historical context, as it keeps mentioning "current" and generally current tense which is bad for FA's in general.  Furtunately it's a lot easier to fix then it sounds, just a bunch of prose reworking.
 * 3) Also mentioned is the pictures of the OS, and tying in your question of what "macintosh" really defines.  In my opinion it's safer to assume the Mac OS article takes care of more of the software details - as you'll have a much more solid fair use ground for the OS pictures - and the macintosh article mostly focusing on the "pure" hardware macintosh computers, and just consider the iPad, iPhone etc. as seperate entities for now.  This is probably where the real work lies, although even then it isn't that bad.  As mentioned, just make sure to keep it in context and consider Mac OS as the operating system and Macintosh as the hardware.
 * 4) Just a few things need referencing.... not a big deal.  Sometimes it can be hard to find RS's for this stuff, especially the older parts, though.

In summary, just needs a bit of a rework; and structure is easy to fix - really just a solid few days, if that. So, don't get too upset if it gets delisted, the problems are relateively easy to fix, as least from what I can see. RN 15:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help. It's been a long FARC and I have ben persuaded that there are problems too big to fix, both mechanical (references) and abstract (organization, structure, focus). I've told them I'm throwing in the towel, but if you want to hold the nom open while actually work on the article, go ahead. Macintosh is the forgotten older brother of the ever popular iPhone and iPad; iPod receives even less attention. I'm going on Wikibreak soon for several weeks, so I guess our timing work out pretty badly. There's a lot of suggestions on the FARC page that you can work on if you like, but I think it's going to require some more in depth discussion - what is a Macintosh? What aspects of it are important? Shame I won't be here for that....although the cynic in me says not much will get done when I'm not here. HereToHelp (talk to me) 12:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. You said it should focus more on the history, when I've seen it slammed before for having too much history. This is what I meant by "What is a Macintosh" - is it one of a finite number of models, or is it one that is designed with care and detail, or one that resembles Justin Long more than John Hodgman, or one that runs OSX no matter who makes the hardware? Thank you for your compliment. I know you're not technically part of WP:APPLE, but we're being reported on for the Signpost Wikiproject report and I think another experienced voice would be beneficial. Up to you. HereToHelp (talk to me) 16:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, when they say it has too much history, they are right in a way - just need to de-emphasize the software more in the history section, which really should be in Mac OS anyway. I think you're overcomplicating things just a bit, I mean it's clearly a combination of all 3 types of personalities you mentioned - it's just the hardware side of it. Since in the apple world the hardware is the end-product and not the software like MS things like how it was advertised and such (Justin Long etc.) can still be mentioned in a passing way; at least if you like my suggestion for the article anyway. RN 16:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you're emphasizing the hardware too much. Apple makes its money on hardware, as witnessed with the clone fiasco, but a Macintosh really is a synthesis of hardware and software (and even netware). So case-in-point: everyone has a different vision of the article. HereToHelp (talk to me) 16:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"but a Macintosh really is a synthesis of hardware and software (and even netware)" - oh, I definately agree with that. I'm simply saying that parts like "In 1987, Apple spun off its software business as Claris. It was given the code [etc...]"" get into way too much detail about the company and/or software and could be summarized in like.... 1 sentence (not to mention the paragraph after that which is almost 100% company-oriented). The problem is it can't really be a catch-all article, or I should say it can, but you need to decide on the priority of what you are going to emphasize, and adjust and condense accordingly, and since there are already articles for the OS and company itself my feeling was to simply prioritize the hardware.  Feel free to disagree though. RN 17:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Ronnies1312, 2 April 2011
Under heading "Product line" iMac and Macbook Pro computers are listed as using Intel Core 2 Duo processors. This should be changed to show that all iMacs ship with Intel Core i3 processors alongside i5 and i7's and Macbook Pros ship with Intel Core i5 and i7 processors only. Core 2 Duo is no longer shipped in these products.

Sources: iMac - http://www.apple.com/imac/specs.html Macbook Pro - http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/specs-compare.html

Ronnies1312 (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Padlock-silver-slash2.svg Not done: is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. This particular table lives in a template that is not protected. See Template:Table of current Macintosh models. &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 00:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Brief loss of market share in 1999-2003?
The Section on "Demographics and market share" talks about growth. This is accurate; the market share of Macintoshes is now growing (even though Windows systems are still a majority at the moment). However, wasn't the Mac market share briefly shrinking right around the Turn of the 3rd Millennium? I remember back when I was in 7th Grade, when Mr. Crawford (my Computer Technology at the time) told us that the Macintosh market share was shrinking. I have reason to believe he was right when he said it at the time, but are there any suggestions on external written sources that may or may not confirm this? I doubt a past market loss would be found in any kind of "History of the Company" page or something like that on Apple's Website no matter how long ago it was, because honestly it would not be a selling point. So, I assume any source to verify this would have to be external to both Wiki and Apple.

So, ideas, can anyone point me in a possible direction of sources for a past loss of market share in 1999-2003 (which has been more than made up for now, granted)? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This loss of market share wasn't that brief, and went back at least to the mid-1990s. Look for computer industry periodicals from the period. Dementia13 (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from 121.73.141.252, 26 May 2011
In the section, 1998 to 2005: New beginnings, there is a citation needed for the line involving the "Rip, Mix, Burn" line. It has a note saying to avoid weasel words and it needs a clarification of who 'some' is. Below is a link to an article providing said citation.

http://www.macworld.com/article/3744/2002/03/eisner2.html

121.73.141.252 (talk) 08:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thank you for this contribution! The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request
"Effected", in the passage about viruses, is a typo: should be "affected". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.168.71 (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Good catch - Denimadept (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

SuperMac
My dad started a company called SuperMac which was important in the early development of early computers, such as the mac's and I could not get much info off the web, so could I have some help on this? Thanks, Jonathan is me (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The only SuperMac I know of was a Mac clone back in the 1990s. - Denimadept (talk) 03:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request
✅

I noticed this statement in the in the introductory text "Macintosh also helped the construction of Mac OS 6 by compacting Macintosh software to make a suitable, easy to use operating system for any macintosh computer of its day."

This does not make sense to me. 'Macintosh' didn't *do* anything, Apple or its developers did. And Mac OS 6? Well, in the classic MacOSes (Mac, Mac+ and MacII era) there certainly was System 6.x, but it was proceeded by System 5.x, and followed by System 7 - 9...I'm not certain it was so special as to be called out here. If there is some factual basis behind this, it should be explained more fully, probably in a later section.

It appears this was added recently as a specific edit. Please review. (cur | prev) 19:07, 20 March 2012‎ Carter4444 (talk | contribs)‎. . (81,630 bytes) (+172)‎. . (undo) introduced the following text. Thanks, Russella (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Removed. - Denimadept (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Xerox
""You're ripping us off!", Steve shouted, raising his voice even higher. "I trusted you, and now you're stealing from us!" But Bill Gates just stood there coolly, looking Steve directly in the eye, before starting to speak in his squeaky voice. "Well, Steve, I think there's more than one way of looking at it. I think it's more like we both had this rich neighbor named Xerox and I broke into his house to steal the TV set and found out that you had already stolen it."" The Original Macintosh: A Rich Neighbor Named Xerox 84.152.29.156 (talk) 19:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a point, or are you trying to waste our time by playing "cut and paste quotations"? Would you like to read some Family Guy or The Evil Dead quotes? Dementia13 (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request
The caption for the first aluminum Mac reads "A 2009 model iMac: a wide, thin, sleek design." Does anyone think the "wide, thin, sleek design" part could be seen as advertising or at least not neutral in nature?

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was not moved. I see no support for the proposed title. Alternatives can be discussed in a subsequent RM. --BDD (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Macintosh → Mac – Apple has used the term "Mac" for its PCs for quite some time, whereas the full term "Macintosh" hasn't been used for a while. Similarly, Mac OS X was renamed OS X to reflect its re-branding over the summer, but still uses the previous name when describing years when it was used. I would suggest moving the page to Mac, but maintaining the usage of Macintosh when describing times in which that term was widely used. 75.130.102.69 (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Support/Oppose It should be at Mac (computer) (which redirects here) because Mac is too ambiguous. But, as the nominator suggests, Macintosh hasn't been used for some time.    Hot Stop     (Edits)   14:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Mac is too ambiguous. The current title Macintosh is well established, and even if they now just call it a Mac exclusively (news to me), few will have forgotten that Mac is just shorthand for Macintosh as the name has a long and glorious history. Be thankful that the fruit isn't primary (McIntosh (apple)) and and we don't use Macintosh (computer). I don't favor switching to a name that requires parenthetical disambiguation when we already have well-established natural disambiguation/primary topic. – Wbm1058 (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per Wbm1058. - Denimadept (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Should be moved to "Macintosh (computer)" for disambiguity. Hill Crest&#39;s WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 23:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Perhaps if the article is moved to "Mac", the disambiguation can be moved into "Mac (disambiguation)"? "Windows" redirects to Microsoft Windows, even though there are articles named called "Windows", and the disambiguation is named "Windows (disambiguation)". Maybe the same can apply here? 75.130.102.69 (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * To the last two commenters, for disambiguation from what? And, there's already a disambig page at Mac which includes this article. - Denimadept (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @75 someone searching for information on the glass things on houses, buildings, cars, etc. would likely just search for 'window'  Hot Stop     (Edits)   03:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to disambiguate from the type of apple. Hill Crest&#39;s WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 20:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you're good, 'cause the apple isn't spelled like this. It's McIntosh (apple). - Denimadept (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Striked out. Hill Crest&#39;s WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 01:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And 'Mac' isn't even unambiguous in the field of computing. When a network engineer says "Mac", they likely mean MAC address (note the WP:Hatnote there), and might say "Apple Mac" or "Apple Macintosh" to disambiguate. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Does Apple even sell a "Macintosh" any more, or just the iMac? And Mac Mini, Mac Pro, Air, etc. I don't believe they have a just "Mac", and was there ever an iMacintosh? When they add "i", "Mini", "Pro", or "Air" they are disambiguating "Mac" – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * To accommodate similar terms, a message reading, "This article is about the line of computers by Apple Inc. For Media Access Control address, see MAC address. For other similar terms, see Mac (disambiguation)." could be placed at the top of the article. 75.130.102.69 (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose any move or renaming. Call me an old timer, but IMHO Mac is still merely short (a nickname, if you will) for the whole word. Macintosh refers to an entire line of iconic computers beginning in 1984. Few other manufacturers have so strongly associated a single name with their products. At some point in the future, I might be convinced otherwise, but for now, in this RM, I oppose any move or renaming. At that point in the future, I could envision a splitting into Macintosh (all those historic computers actually named as such) and individual Mac-named lines. I would oppose any article with the namespace "Mac", because Apple has never sold products without a modifier to that abbreviation. Their advertising has occasionally referred to individual products as such, but no product with which I'm familiar was just named Mac. It would be interesting to hear what Apple has to say on this subject. BusterD (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Under Apple's trademarks, Mac and Macintosh are both trademarked terms for their computer. While they used the term Mac often, there were also several uses of the original Macintosh, especially when discussing proper trademark usage. 75.130.102.69 (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose The scope of the article covers the original Macintosh through the most recent. They are all called Mac something but only because that is short for Macintosh. Apteva (talk) 08:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request
The caption for this Mac reads "A 2009 model iMac: a wide, thin, sleek design." Does anyone think the "wide, thin, sleek design" part could be seen as advertising or at least not neutral in nature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banj0123 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ - sorry, didn't realize you were still editing the request. - Denimadept (talk) 07:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Anagram
"Apple Macintosh" is an anagram of "laptop machines". Lol! Add to article, or elsewhere on site somewhere? Jimthing (talk) 07:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just drop it. Take it back out of the article, or someone else will.  Anagrams have no significance in this article. - Denimadept (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent vandalism
Is there a reason for the sudden rise in vandalism? Did Apple do something big just now and I missed it? —Frungi (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a rather popular image board called '4chan', generally the entire board is quite harmless, however there is one category on the board called 'Random', often referred to as /b/. This category has no moderation whatsoever, and users are free to post absolutely anything while remaining anonymous. One user posted a thread telling everyone to post suggestions, and whoever's post number ends with the number 42 would be the entry that they all vandalized. I was watching this thread as people posted suggestions and put the lock request on the talk page the moment Macintosh was chosen then began reverting edits. If you choose to visit 'Random' for yourself, I must warn you that the majority of the content is extremely vulgar and would advise against it. At the very least, make sure there are no 'young eyes' around when you visit. -Moosehadley (talk) 08:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Pfff. Does 4chan just exist to stir up problems? It seems whenever something online thats controversial, 4chan started it... Andrew Wiggin (talk) 11:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 08 July 2014

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Macintosh → Mac (computer) – Both officially and in conversation, as well as in modern sources, the computers being sold are called “Macs”. As far as I can tell, modern reliable sources refer to the line of computers as “Macintosh” only in historical contexts anymore. (I have mixed feelings about this turn of events myself having grown up with Macintosh, but these seem to be the facts, and Wikipedia should primarily use modern common names.) 174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Original formulation, edited after first !vote from User:Smuckola: Both officially and in conversation, the computers being sold are called “Mac”. As far as I can tell, the line of computers are only called “Macintosh” in historical contexts anymore. (I have mixed feelings about this myself having grown up with Macintosh, but these seem to be the facts, and Wikipedia should primarily use modern common names.) 174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Oppose....What? "feelings"? "Seem"? If the owner of the property did not issue a formal name change, then this is completely original research. Take your pick of however many ways this violates what WP:NOT Wikipedia is not: a news source, an interpreter of the zeitgeist of a corporate culture, an engine of busy work, etc. I don't see how anyone could think that they could justify using the very issuance of an impetus to take an action (this alleged move request), to coerce everyone else to do actual research and write a personal tutorial for an anonymous user as to whether the impetus is even justified in the first place (any replies to the move request). This is a request to actually invasively rename a ton of stuff on a whim, not a policy inquiry or a personal tutorial. It isn't even based on any WP:RS, verifiable research, or even personal certainty whatsoever. What? (And I have just been forced to revert the WP:TENDENTIOUSly dishonest defacing of my explicit vote, bearing my factual and policy based rationale of this already-counter-consensual non-issue of renaming to ephemeral brand nicknames with no WP:RS or policy or any other factual requirement presented.)— Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 08:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I’ve edited the RM (original is saved below). That should address your concerns and hopefully clear up any confusion my formulation may have caused. I think. But if it doesn’t, please reply here only with those issues or with policy-based arguments against this move, and please try to leave any personal criticisms out of it so they don’t confuse the discussion. As for the complaints of needing to “rename a ton of stuff”… that’s the nature of this project. Look at the WT:PLACE discussions about metropolitan areas in the recent past, for example. A whole bunch of stuff needed to be tracked down and renamed, and so it was. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 10:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In response to your recent parenthetical addition: After addressing the issues you raised (with the way I wrote the RM, rather than arguing against the merits of the move itself), I asked you on your Talk page about making that edit, and invited you to make a clear argument against this move free of any hostile attacks on me and my decisions. So now I’m in the position of having to apologize for not assuming that you were simply ignoring all that. What is your problem? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:NATURAL, the current title is recognizable, and understood, and shorter than the proposed one. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But is it in use? Am I mistaken that it’s only used in historical contexts, referring to when the line was called Macintosh? Or is that irrelevant when considering WP:NATURAL? (Related: WT:AT) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. WP:NATURAL doesn't apply to names that have fallen out of use. Red Slash 05:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm not convinced that it has completely fallen out of use to warrant a page move at this time. As long as various companies like Adobe and various reliable sources like Mac World continue to use "Mac" and "Macintosh" interchangeably, then per WP:NATURAL, "Macintosh" still appears to be "an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called, albeit not as commonly as the preferred" name of "Mac". Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, mostly due to "Mac" not not being PrimaryTopic, there is far too much at mac. Macintosh is tending obsolete for the recent versions, but I think it is still well-recogizable.  Mac (computer) is not better than Mac (Macintosh), which horribly fails WP:Concise over Macintosh.  This move proposal has to overcome both NATURAL and CONCISE.  Trying to find other solutions to the agreed problem, consider splitting the article, as mentioned below in the Discussion section.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Split the article to where? You seem here to have argued against every option for a title. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah. The status quo has a problem, but everything else is worse. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not called a problem in search of a solution. This is barely even called a solution in search of a problem. This is a search for a solution which is in search of a problem. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 05:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that everything on the page post-1998 does not match the title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * It's always interesting to me when WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURAL clash. The nominator is undoubtedly right that "Mac" is the common name, though it's probably not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for such a general term, and thus would need disambiguation. It might also be worth considering whether "Mac" is a colloquialism or has official usage. I suspect the latter. --BDD (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the need for disambiguation seemed to be a main reason that the previous move (to Mac) failed. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd absolutely say that the computer merits primary topic for "Mac", with that spelling. We'll see. Red Slash 05:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm curious about what the OP refers to as "modern reliable sources" versus "historical contexts". Also, how far back are you defining "modern"? Because it may start to raise some Recentism questions. For example, if you are only talking about just 2014 reliable sources, that does not seem enough justification to completely ditch the WP:NATURAL title of "Macintosh". It seems to be still an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called, albeit not as commonly as the preferred "Mac". And as the OP seems to allude to, "Macintosh" seems to still be used in various recent sources in regards to its historical context. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe the synonymous use of “Macintosh” has been fading for a number of years now (from around the introduction of the iMac), and most sources that I see using it in recent years (including the ones you cite) are referring specifically to the first model introduced in 1984. You have a point about recentism since this article is about the entire line, but unless “Macintosh” makes a resurgence (which is doubtful), that should become less and less of a concern. I know Google counts are never necessarily indicative of anything, but just for illustration, I searched for pages containing "Mac" computer and "Macintosh" computer from 1/1/2010 to 1/1/2014 (which was before Apple’s 30th anniversary tribute). The former returns 75 million hits, and the latter 7.7 million. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 06:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is slowly falling, but I still see no evidence that it has fallen completely out of use for me to completely give my full support for a page move at this time. It is still currently "Adobe Reader for Macintosh", not Mac (as well as all of the other Adobe products). And recent articles like this continue to use "Mac" and "Macintosh" interchangeably in the body text. Thus under WP:NATURAL, it may appear to be still "an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called, albeit not as commonly as the preferred" name of "Mac". As you stated, you still got over 7.7 million hits, which is still significant. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Suggest splitting the article, at Macintosh. This is where the name changed, and a whole lot more too.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mac(intosh?)
As I said in the above RM, Apple (and many others) seems to have dropped “Macintosh” in favor of “Mac”. So at what point should a move (or split) be seriously considered? After outlets like Macworld stop using it? Or would we keep it as the title regardless if only for natural disambiguation of “Mac” (assuming Apple doesn’t officially disavow the older name or anything unlikely like that)? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose splitting:
 * Macintosh. This article, to 1997/8
 * Apple Mac. Everything "Mac", from the release of Mac OS 8 (mentioning the return of Steve Jobs in a preamble).
 * I feel that there is a natural split here. Before 1998 was the Apple loosing to the clones, after 1997 was the revival of Apple to what continues today.  The two parts are relatively independent.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. You said before that there is a problem, and that problem is the prose contained in the article, in that it predominantly moves toward the use of the product's nickname "Mac" over its natural name "Macintosh" after a certain point. You very well might be significantly more familiar with Wikipedia's many helpfully sprawling policies than I am, so could you please elucidate where exactly are these policy statements: 1) whereby this is explicitly defined as a problem 2) how this final summary determination (not just some of the details) of feeling as you call it is not  original research 3) how that policy is superior over the extensively established prevalence of WP:RS and consensus as stated in the previous discussion above 4) why it is mandatory to do anything at all about it 5) why it isn't resolved by way of simply writing within the existing article 6) how splitting helps anything 7) splitting into really truly exactly what?  How are the goals of the encyclopedia mandatorily improved, which can only be done in this way? Without, of course, any feelings, and with detailed projections and guesses as required.  I'd appreciate if you'd do us all that favor, because that's obviously what's required in order to substantiate your having made the suggestion in the first place, and that's the vector by which I'm following the process so far. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 09:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * “it predominantly moves toward the use of the product's nickname "Mac" over its natural name "Macintosh" after a certain point.”—It’s more that the nickname has transitioned into the natural name (in reliable sources, of course). That is, “Mac” is no longer the nickname, but the natural, official, and most common name. Or at the very least, it’s been trending that way for years. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: I never suggested we describe the name’s transition in the article. I don’t think anyone has. It’s just that when names change, our article titles tend to change (or split) with them. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You said before that there is a problem, and that problem is the prose contained in the article, in that it predominantly moves toward the use of the product's nickname "Mac" over its natural name "Macintosh" after a certain point. You very well might be significantly more familiar with Wikipedia's many helpfully sprawling policies than I am, so could you please elucidate where exactly are these policy statements
 * User:Smuckola, ...
 * I prefer what I wrote. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have little respect for "policy" as opposed to improving Wikipedia coverage of this topic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

1) whereby this is explicitly defined as a problem 2) how this final summary determination (not just some of the details) of feeling as you call it is not original research 3) how that policy is superior over the extensively established prevalence of WP:RS and consensus as stated in the previous discussion above 4) why it is mandatory to do anything at all about it 5) why it isn't resolved by way of simply writing within the existing article 6) how splitting helps anything 7) splitting into really truly exactly what? How are the goals of the encyclopedia mandatorily improved, which can only be done in this way? Without, of course, any feelings, and with detailed projections and guesses as required. I'd appreciate if you'd do us all that favor, because that's obviously what's required in order to substantiate your having made the suggestion in the first place, and that's the vector by which I'm following the process so far.
 * It's not. Do you agree or disagree that there is any problem with all of the content being under the current title? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Did I say any of that??? I don't think I did. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is certainly not mandatory to do anything here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The early stuff was known as Macintosh, and still is. The later stuff has been known as Mac, not Macintosh. At the section "Revival", this change in terminology could be mention. Would you support that? I think that the change is so dramatic that it makes sense to split, to give two different ledes. It's a suggestion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The early Macintoshes are different to the later Macs, in many ways. They are more easily summarised separately. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Was what I wrote unclear? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Why are you trying to make this so complicated? The question is: Split or not split?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:43, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess I’ll be the first to formally respond to SmokeyJoe’s proposal… Support splitting around the time of the NeXT acquisition. There are a couple of different split points that would make sense, I think, but this one works. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose: As a needlessly major change to a major article, in the form of a general personal aesthetic response to a general personal perception and not to canon, this issue is a vague quasi-solution in search of a problem. So I'm sorry to say that this is unsupportable as an encyclopedia or as Wikipedia specifically.  Additionally, when stated in apparent generally openly responsive/preemptive defiance of any given policy for no particular reason, that's clearly reinforced. The subject has always had a natural name and a quasi-natural nickname, as is clearly stated in the article, and there is no problem.  Thank you. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 05:43, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It’s not “in search of a problem.” The “problem” is that, nickname or not, the natural and COMMONNAME has changed. This is reflected without comment in this very article as well as a preponderance of sources. The RM consensus was that it’s not yet to the point where a move is necessary (which is why I asked about that in this section), but you can’t realistically deny the widespread change in use. And for what it’s worth, my “personal aesthetic response” is: Aw, I liked that name. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose split there's no need. You can always write subarticles on 68k Macs, PowerPC Macs, Wintel Macs, Classic OS Macs, OSX Macs. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 08:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We've just finished discussion on the name change, please don't restart it within the next 3 months. Discuss something else, besides changing the name (such as the split proposal). -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 08:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)