Talk:Mac (computer)/Archive 8

So when should we move?
Since no one answered this above, I’ll ask again: At what point should a move from Macintosh be seriously considered? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't move it, the proposal failed. Move it along, we just finished discussing the subject. Don't discuss it for the next 4 months. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Unilaterally declaring the topic off limits really does nothing to help. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You were answered repeatedly during each of your redundant posts, already redundant to the same discussion a year ago after which nothing (namely Apple's explicit canon) has changed. You automatically filter out dissent, and talk over it reiteratively like "groundhog day". (WP:ICANTHEARYOU)  In other words, what 65.94.171.126 said. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 05:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't, and we won't, for the foreseeable future. This has already been recently discussed;  See the above discussion. - Denimadept (talk) 06:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I’m not saying we should move it, and I’m not asking when we should restart the debate. I’m asking specifically when a move would be desirable, what events we ought to wait for, what it would take for the opposers of that RM to support a move. For instance, does the non-historical use of “Macintosh” need to more substantially die out, so that sources like Macworld and Adobe no longer use it? Or do we need to wait for an official proclamation from Apple, and if so, why give the official brand name more precedence here than we normally do? Responses free of personal allegations (which belong on my still-waiting Talk page and do not belong here) would be more helpful here, and much less likely for me to “filter out.” —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So why are we talking about it? What needs to happen?  Apple changing the name retroactively would probably do it. - Denimadept (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * “…and if so, why give the official brand name more precedence here than we normally do?” I sincerely doubt Apple will ever officially deprecate “Macintosh,” but doesn’t real-world use in reliable third-party sources trump that? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * See the above archived discussion. - Denimadept (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe I’m just dense, but the only real answer I see there is that the use of “Macintosh” would need to drop further before a move would be viable. Is that it, or was there more? And I don’t see any discussion of official name vs real-world use, if that’s what you mean. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I mean, as well as which is from 2012.  This topic comes up every once in a while.  We've discussed it as recently as earlier this month.  It's a dead topic for now.  Come back in 2016. - Denimadept (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I’m aware of my recent RM. Some of the discussion in there was uninformative and even unproductive. That’s why I felt the need to ask what I did in this section and prompt some informative responses. Now since I’ve apparently missed the information you tried to point me to, would you mind stating it explicitly? What needs to change for a move, if there was something other than the use of “Macintosh” dropping further? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * oic. Well, IIRC, I didn't participate in that discussion because it wasn't an issue for me.  My position is that there's no need for a move.  The computer line has been named "Macintosh" since its announcement in 1984, and nothing has changed.  I don't care about the vernacular; this is the official name and the name I use personally when I'm being formal.  I have a "Macintosh SE", a "Macintosh Quadra 630", a "Macintosh G5", and a "MacBook Pro", but they're all Macintosh computers.  For me, it'd take the end of the Macintosh line, or Apple saying they were formally renaming the line. - Denimadept (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's also useful for differentiating it from MAC address. - Denimadept (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * All right, thanks. Sorry for my difficulty in getting the intended question across. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I didn't take part in the above RM discussion but for what its worth, I would have opposed the move. The line was introduced as the Macintosh back in 1984. Each incarnation has its own article and name, so theres no reason for moving the main article at all.-- JOJ Hutton  21:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Does WP:COMMONNAME have any bearing on the name of a product line? Like, if it happened that no sources outside of Apple called the line “Macintosh” anymore (which is not presently the case), would that be grounds for a move? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What if wishes were fishes? What if the Titanic didn't sink?  What if? - Denimadept (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Then we’d have to rewrite the Titanic article. And if use of this full name died out in reliable sources—which is something that could realistically happen—I assume we’d have to move this article. Am I wrong? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a volunteer effort largely run by consensus. If consensus changed, we'd change the name.  What would cause consensus to change is largely speculative.  I don't think we can come up with a definitive answer to your question.  I figure that there's zero chance of this changing, as even if Apple were to retroactively change the name, we'd still record what the name had been. - Denimadept (talk) 22:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * A perfect answer, I think. Thank you. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

"Unibody" issues
The term is linked at its 2nd mention in the text, though it is wikilinked in the infobox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monocoque. The target article does not mention anything other than large vehicles, so whilst the reader may draw an analogy from this that they could probably work out anyway, I challenge the appropriateness of having the link at all. Personally, I was browsing for *specific* information on the nature of the difference in construction of the earlier aluminium bodies with the so-called unibody ones. Anyone in the intimate know care to add a section to Monocoque, or a wlink to another Mac article section where this is better defined?  Trev M ~  16:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That unibody does not currently discuss unibody construction outside of vehicles does not affect its appropriateness as a wikilink in the Macintosh article; it's no different, really, from adding a link that is currently a red link. In either case, linking is done in hopes that the target will at some point be created (or, in the unibody case, updated) with appropriate information. Ylee (talk) 17:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that Wikipedia should have an article about unibody construction. Unibody had redirected to the tiny subsection Vehicle frame (which I just added a very brief description to), and Monocoque states that a unibody is a different thing from a monocoque. Unfortunately, I’m not aware of a better link at present. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 04:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request - Narrative is incorrect
By the time that Apple launched the Macintosh in 1984, the IBM PC had already established market dominance. The Mac was never "overtaken" by the IBM PC, because the Mac was never in a leadership position. In fact the Apple II outsold the Mac for several years after the Mac introduction.

This is helpful to review: http://arstechnica.com/features/2005/12/total-share/5/ Hhwong (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Went ahead and fixed it myself Hhwong (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Google docs entries dead
It appears that the footnotes to Google Docs no longer work. I'd remove them, but wonder if someone knows how to restore them to their original form. Thanks. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, these were all replaced by Macintosh919977 on 23 Feb. 2015 -- is there a way to remove these two edits but retain changes since then? -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Macintosh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.islandnet.com/~kpolsson/applehis/appl1984.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Macintosh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080905184109/http://developer.apple.com/adcnews/pastissues/devnews121997.html to http://developer.apple.com/adcnews/pastissues/devnews121997.html#stats

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 22:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Macintosh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160304214945/http://ipadsonsale.com/what-will-it-take-to-put-apple-back-on-top/ to http://www.ipadsonsale.com/what-will-it-take-to-put-apple-back-on-top/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Macintosh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive {newarchive} to https://docs.google.com/document/d/11Iyb4f_GMLWI3fgg2nPaAIsVtyWI9FA-UR5Nw-yqOLE/edit?usp=sharing

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Macintosh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160405014827/https://docs.google.com/document/d/11Iyb4f_GMLWI3fgg2nPaAIsVtyWI9FA-UR5Nw-yqOLE/edit?usp=sharing to https://docs.google.com/document/d/11Iyb4f_GMLWI3fgg2nPaAIsVtyWI9FA-UR5Nw-yqOLE/edit?usp=sharing

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Macintosh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090821105822/http://www.islandnet.com/~kpolsson/applehis/appl1984.htm to http://www.islandnet.com/~kpolsson/applehis/appl1984.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0%2C9171%2C954205-2%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=7045
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090821105822/http://www.islandnet.com/~kpolsson/applehis/appl1984.htm to http://www.islandnet.com/~kpolsson/applehis/appl1984.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Macintosh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928072214/http://jef.raskincenter.org/published/holes.html to http://mxmora.best.vwh.net/JefRaskin.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140104172110/http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/news/2004/01/61730 to https://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/news/2004/01/61730

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Macintosh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212193823/http://www.islandnet.com/~kpolsson/applehis/appl1990.htm to http://www.islandnet.com/~kpolsson/applehis/appl1990.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.kaomso.com/FullStory.php?TheStory=78
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212193828/http://www.islandnet.com/~kpolsson/applehis/appl1994.htm to http://www.islandnet.com/~kpolsson/applehis/appl1994.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080126191842/http://www.apple.com/ca/press/1999/01/iMac_Sales.html to http://www.apple.com/ca/press/1999/01/iMac_Sales.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081029065952/http://pcworld.about.com/news/Jan092001id37951.htm to http://pcworld.about.com/news/Jan092001id37951.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081029194838/http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/PowerMacG4_CubeAbout.PDF to http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/PowerMacG4_CubeAbout.PDF
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100104090000/http://homepage.mac.com/pauljlucas/personal/macmini/index.html to http://homepage.mac.com/pauljlucas/personal/macmini/index.html
 * Added tag to http://ostatic.com/blog/virtualization-makes-running-linux-a-snap
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060617181908/http://c-i-a.com/pr1198.htm to http://www.c-i-a.com/pr1198.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/10/21/1390638/despite-growing-sales-macs-share.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080519224918/http://blogs.eweek.com/applewatch/content/channel/macs_defy_windows-gravity.html to http://blogs.eweek.com/applewatch/content/channel/macs_defy_windows-gravity.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121127170421/http://www.informationweek.com/hardware/apple-macintosh/black-friday-unusual-apple-deals/240142480 to http://www.informationweek.com/hardware/apple-macintosh/black-friday-unusual-apple-deals/240142480
 * Added tag to http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/oshistory/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Clock Speed Clock Rate should be left out of this article
From the Wikipedia article on Clock rate: There are a few mentions of clock speed: "Engineers also continue to find new ways to design CPUs so that they complete more instructions per clock cycle, thus achieving a lower CPI (cycles or clock cycles per instruction) count, although they may run at the same or a lower clock rate as older CPUs. This is achieved through architectural techniques such as instruction pipelining and out-of-order execution which attempts to exploit instruction level parallelism in the code." This means that clock speed was never a serious consideration for Apple or anyone else except through marketing. Certainly AMD could compare their x86 clock speed to "Wintel" platforms because both were generally working with the same software on the same operating systems. It would never be taken as a serious point by Steve Jobs, or any corporate board. Ironically an article cited about clock speed says within: "Intel will emphasize low power consumption and performance, but not megahertz, Brookwood says. (AMD has emphasized performance, not megahertz ratings, for years.) “Intel seems to have kicked the megahertz habit,” says Insight 64’s Brookwood. “It’s probably music to Steve Jobs’ ears,” he adds, noting how Jobs had to explain PowerPC chip performance on applications, not raw megahertz ratings." That's from ''Analysis: Why Apple picked Intel over AMD'" By Laurianne McLaughlin PCWorld | SEP 15, 2005   The speed of Mac OS X on PowerPC vs Intel would be a better data point, I'm sure those tests were published somewhere.  Even then, there's room for argument that they are not actually running identical code, PowerPC was big endian while x86 is little endian. It would be unsurprising if the lower clock rate PowerPC actually beats Mac Intel in various tests, in part because of Altivec vs Streaming SIMD Extensions and SSE2. Note contemporary PowerPC processors were used in the RS/6000 and AS/400 computer families. They also became the dominant processor in automobiles. It seems highly inaccurate to call them "underpowered" in desktop computers. Not in more recent times the Xbox 360 processor; Xenon and the Nintendo GameCube, Wii, and Wii U processors, Sony and Toshiba, for the Cell processor (inside the PlayStation 3 and other devices) are all PowerPC. But in particular I'm critical of "In 2005, a low-end consumer Dell Dimension desktop computer shipped with an Intel Pentium 4 processor clocked at 2.4 GHz, while only a higher-end model of the Power Mac G5's PowerPC 970 (which would have sold for over $2000 USD) processor had a clock speed in that range (the fastest dual-core Power Mac clocked at 2.7 GHz), and the last version of the PowerPC-based iMac had a maximum clock speed of 2.1 GHz." That has nothing to do with performance, as anyone who used Power Mac G5's can attest. I doubt it had any effect on sales, either. Generally professionals (in particular users in graphic design/graphic arts) were well aware of Mac's capabilities and had no interest in clock speed. Neither did corporate buyers for Dell Dimension. Teenage gamers might have felt passionate about that issue, because the clock rate comparisons were heavily marketed to that segment, but that's about it. I'd be very interest to see real work application comparisons (perhaps in Linux distros?)but consumers weren't able to do such comparisons, and most didn't care. Such comparisons should not be made in Wikipedia articles, even if citations from computer publications can be made.vCuvtixo (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 30 June 2017

 * The following is a closed 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. No support has been risen for this move at the current time. (non-admin closure).  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )  05:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Macintosh → Mac – Apple refers to the computers as "Mac" on the websites, product descriptions, hardware, software, etc., etc. "Mac" is also the common name. Apple no longer uses Macintosh. If "Mac" isn't specific enough, we can redirect the article to Mac (computer) Ticklewickleukulele (talk) 04:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just to be clear, this proposal is actually starting two separate discussions. The first is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC discussion because Mac is currently a disambiguation page and Macintosh would have to be established as the primary topic for "Mac" in order to be moved there. I myself don't think that Macintosh as "Mac" has nearly enough prominence to outweigh the many other notable meanings of that term, so I'd strongly advise changing the proposal to something like the suggested Mac (computer). And as to that move, it smells quite a bit like WP:RECENTISM to me (admittedly I don't see anything on that page about article titles)(ok, it's not that recent), but I don't have a strong enough opinion there to give a "vote". Edit: I'd also like to point out that Apple's current branding of their products isn't very important compared to how notable sources refer to the products.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 06:14, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now on both issues. Compelling evidence needs to be presented to show that the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Mac" would now be the computer. Secondly, per WP:NCDAB, "Natural disambiguation is generally preferable to parenthetical disambiguation". I see no compelling advantage in switching to the parenthetical disambiguation title, especially when "Mac (computer)" is longer than "Macintosh". And of course, as Fyrael wrote, a company's current branding of their products is not that important in deciding an article title (see Official names and WP:TITLETM, among others). Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose; I would put Celtic onomastics as closer to being the primary topic of this term. bd2412  T 03:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose; This last came up 3 years ago, and it was defeated.  "Mac" is short for "Macintosh", period end of story. - Denimadept (talk) 04:35, 6 July 2017 (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.

System 7 was a 32-bit rewrite from Pascal to C++ - No!
I'm not sure where this claim in the article comes from? It is definitely not true. System 7 was nothing like a rewrite. And it certainly wasn't in C++! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.100.245 (talk) 06:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 12 December 2017

 * The following is a closed 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. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Macintosh → Mac (computer) – As per WP:COMMONNAME, we should be using an article name that it's commonly used. Macintosh might be the original name but nowadays everyone refers to them as a Mac computer. Google Trends shows that more people are searching for "Mac computer" than "macintosh". And yes, Mac is short for Macintosh but I again refer you back to WP:COMMONNAME, we should be using the most common name, even if it's a shortened version. Swedeaction (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Moving to an ambiguous title that needs a disambiguator seems much worse than the current very recognizable title. And "(computer)" is not a great disambiguator anyway, since it's as much an operating system as a computer. Dicklyon (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The operating system is called commonly and officially macOS, not Mac. --В²C ☎ 23:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This has been discussed over, and over, and over, and over, and over again. Please review the dozen previous discussions on this subject.... you'll see that the consensus has always been to keep the name at Macintosh and that you are not presenting a new argument.  Yes, "Mac" is the more common name nowadays, but it is ambiguous, and WP:NATURALDIS recommends "using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title."  The same guideline also states that this is preferable to a parenthetical disambiguation.  That's why Wikipedia has articles titled "MAC address", "MAC Cosmetics" and "Macintosh" instead of "MAC (networking)", "MAC (cosmetics company)" and "Mac (computer)".  Warren -talk- 03:10, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because there was consensus before doesn't mean it was the right decision. Swedeaction (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You're going to need to present a more compelling case than "I'm right and you're wrong."  Warren -talk- 20:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Mac is too ambiguous. As Warren stated, Mac could easily refer to a MAC address in computer networking, or some other meaning. Macintosh is the accepted title for the page, and is the historical name for the computer line by Apple Inc. Per MOS:TRADEMARKS, trademarks are irrelevant when deciding on a title for an article. Having Mac (computer) as a redirect is suffice. It has been established per previous consensus that the current title should remain.  CookieMonster755   𝚨-𝛀    03:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Due to confusion, as elucidated by the above posts/discussions/etc.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as an improvement, but this article really should be at Mac. Yes, it's ambiguous, but I looked over that dab page and it's one obscure use after another.  Yes, there are many other uses, but most are unlikely to be sought with the term "mac", and anyone searching with "mac" is almost certainly looking for this article. This is exactly why we have the concept of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --В²C ☎ 23:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, here's a test for you to try -- Open a browser in "incognito mode" and try doing a search for "Mac". You know what the #1 result is for me?  MAC Cosmetics, not Apple.  On balance, half of the first 20 search results are cosmetics-related, mixed in with Apple stuff, a museum in Montreal, and the Muslim Association of Canada.  If you're a dude, you probably have exactly zero appreciation for this, but MAC is a huge brand for women.  Owned by Estee Lauder, billion dollar revenues, sold in over 100 countries, Billboard #1 artist Nikki Minaj tie-ins, etc.etc.  Heck, if you do a search for "Mac wiki", MAC Cosmetics is #1 there too. <span style="color:#1018ff;font-family:Zapfino,Monotype Corsiva;"> Warren -talk- 00:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice one. I did get Apple's Mac first in my incognito Google search results for "mac", but the cosmetics was second. Surprised me; I'll give you that. BUT, this page gets double the views of MAC Cosmetics |Macintosh... I think that's more than good enough to qualify as primary topic. That said, I think there is a good argument to redirect MAC (all caps) to the cosmetics page. --В²C ☎ 01:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Another point... consider users who are searching for the cosmetics with "mac". Are they better served if they're taken, not surprisingly, to this page about Apple's Mac with a conspicuous hatnote link taking them directly to the page they're seeking?  Or if they're taken to the unwieldy, lengthy dab page riddled with obscure and dubious uses of the term through which they have to wade in order to find a link to the article they are seeking? I think that's rather obvious. --В²C ☎ 01:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment/Question: In checking on page views, I discovered this |Macintosh|MAC_address this. For some reason the page views history for the MAC Address page fluctuates in a near perfect sinusoidal curve! What would cause that?  --В²C ☎ 02:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OMG! I figured it out. So funny! --В²C ☎ 05:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody??? It's weekend use dropping! Peak views are on Wednesdays! --В²C ☎ 06:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose again. No need to ambiguate. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2017 (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.

Macintosh sales
Should we mention that the years for the Macintosh sales are Fiscal Years? So the Mac sold 13.66 million units Fiscal Year 2010 (September 2009-September 2010), and not actually January-December 2010? Or is that implied? McDonaldsGuy (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * IMac Pro.svg

First line
Hi

What is this nonsense? It reads "This was the first (another one was ACTUALLY first, but it didnt sell as well)"

The SInclair WAS released to the mass market, the mass market just did not buy as many.

Quite simply put, one of those "facts" needs to be changed - the Sinclair WAS the first, the Mac was the first SUCCESSFUL mass sales machine.

The Mac was NOT the first to be released, so that should be changed - this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a Mac fanboi resource. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * MacBook Air 2017 y 2018 (46040991591).jpg

Pre-emptive multitasking
The article is shockingly wrong saying that preemptive multitasking was not possible on an 8MHz 68k CPU: for a fact, the Amiga OS had it working and commercialised since 1985. Please do some fact checking before relaying wrong information. Bohan (talk)
 * It didn't, and doesn't, say that. Please read. — Smuckola(talk) 23:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

"continued decline of the Macintosh user base"
This is misleading. As the numbers of Windows PC users grew, the percentage of Apple's user base by comparison with all other personal computers declined. This does not mean the Macintosh user base itself declined, as those numbers likely continued to grow. Misty MH (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Macbook Air.png

Is there anything special about the Mac keyboard ?
There is a discussion at Talk:Keyboard technology as to whether the section about Apple keyboards in the article should be deleted since it is just a stub to attract attention but nothing has arrived. Does this mean that Mac keyboards are only cosmetically different from commodity keyboards? and that there is nothing of significance to say? If anyone can help, please do so at Keyboard technology. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The current version is macOS Monterey, first released on June 7, 2021 - Incorrect!
The current version of macOS is macOS Big Sur (11.5.2) not macOS Monterey. macOS Monterey is in Beta and is NOT the current OS or being used by the public for the Mac. It has NOT been released, as it is only in beta testing and Public beta testing. the Official release of macOS Monterey is scheduled for sometime in the fall season of 2021. https://www.apple.com/macos/big-sur/. https://www.apple.com/macos/monterey-preview/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40b:381:1d00:3cb5:1414:8f5d:a020 (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Mac Studio.jpg

Requested move 27 September 2022
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: move Macintosh to Mac (computer). There is no consensus for a primary topic, so the disambiguation page will remain at the base title. (closed by non-admin page mover) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

– There has been no move discussion since 2014. I think it's long overdue.
 * Macintosh → Mac
 * Mac → Mac (disambiguation)

Since there are two components to this move, here's a breakdown of arguments for each:

1. Macintosh should be moved to Mac

The name Macintosh is defunct, and hasn't been used for almost two decades by either average people or reliable sources. No one today uses the term "Macintosh" to refer to Apple's computer lineup, except clearly SEO-spam content in Google search results, old content from the Macintosh era, and this Wikipedia page. The vast majority of people don't even know that "Macintosh" and "Mac" refer to the same thing. WP:COMMONNAME clearly requires a move at this point.

A common argument in previous move discussions was that "Mac" was short for "Macintosh"; which is simply no longer true when "Macintosh" is no longer used by anyone (not just Apple; customers and reliable sources too). I've searched the NYTimes: the only mentions of "Macintosh" in recent articles are in captions of photographs from the 80s, or articles discussing Apple's history (an example is here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/15/business/apple-california-manufacturing-history.html). Feel free to search  to confirm this.

2. It should be moved to Mac as opposed to Mac (computer), and the disamb should be moved to Mac (disambiguation)

Though the Mac disambig page is quite full, none of the articles it links to are especially notable, save for MAC Cosmetics, which received 9k views in 30 days compared to 50k for Macintosh. Mackintosh (clothing) received 5k. This move would be fully in line with, for example, Rice, which receives 70k monthly views and takes the main page, while Rice University received 30k monthly views and is relegated to the disambig page. To be clear, my argument here is not founded on pageviews but mainly notability. Looking at Google Search results, there are about 11,400 results for the query "site:nytimes.com apple mac", compared to 2,930 results for "site:nytimes.com mac cosmetics" (note that articles on the Mac may not necessary contain the word "Apple", for example, in the NYTimes's product comparisons or buying recommendations; so the Apple results are likely incomplete). Looking at Google Trends, type "MAC Cosmetics" on one side, and MacBook (pick "topic", not "search term" for both for a fair comparison); the computer is clearly far more notable than the cosmetics brand: MacBook, only part of Apple's Mac lineup, is at 80 on Google Trends, compared to 17 for MAC Cosmetics.

When users type "Mac" into Wikipedia's search bar, they likely expect to land here; users who want to go to MAC Cosmetics are likely to type that full name in the search bar. Same for MAC address, which is always called by its full name, never just "MAC", to avoid the inevitable confusion that would ensue. While I fully agree that Apple should link to the fruit to avoid excessive commercialism, I don't feel this concern applies here, since the term Mac is so associated with the computer, and since both Mac (the computer) and MAC Cosmetics represent commercialism.

Though WP:NATURALDIS specifies that an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title may be used, I don't feel it applies here, as the Mac lineup is not at all "commonly called" Macintosh (these days, practically never, it's more of an easter egg if anything). That argument would work if the balance was 60/40 in favor of "Mac", as opposed to what seems more like 90/10 or more.

The new Mac page should have, at the top: DFlhb (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Against moving to "Mac":
 * Support, but Macintosh be moved to Mac (computer) instead –
 * "Mac" as a singular noun has many uses, even if they are considered "obscure" on the disambiguation page, and additionally includes MAC as an acronym for many organisations, hence it's too ambiguous to simply use the Mac article link. I also do not think page views should be a primary metric for determining article links, as in that case Folklore (Taylor Swift album) would've been moved to Folklore (album) a long while ago.

Support moving to "Mac (computer)":
 * The current article name, "Macintosh" is a legacy name, and is rarely used by Apple now aside from the default hard drive name "Macintosh HD". Currently, googling "Macintosh" brings up results for 1980s-era Macintosh computers, particularly the original Macintosh 128K model. Hence, "Macintosh" would not be appropriate to refer to the current line of Mac computers, and should instead be moved to "Mac (computer)", as that is the official and commonly used name for this line of Apple computers.
 * P.S.: The last move discussion was in 2017, not 2014!

Theknine2 (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input. Indeed, I had missed the 2017 move request. I'd like to just clarify one thing: my argument for Mac as opposed to Mac (computer) mainly rests on notability concerns rather than Wikipedia pageviews; when reliable sources talk about the Mac, they rarely seem to feel a need to explain that they're referring to the computer. I'll update my move request above to incorporate a few counterarguments to what I've just seen in the 2017 move request discussion. DFlhb (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

against move. Nothing has changed here. Macintosh is and has always been the name of the line. - Denimadept (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I've updated my original proposal at the same time you posted your comment, so I don't know if you've seen the update; just wanted to let you know. My proposal now addresses arguments from the 2017 discussion that Theknine2 pointed out. I also think reliable sources are quite clear that Macintosh "is" not the name of the line, though it used to be. DFlhb (talk) 22:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * {{{Ping|DFlhb}} - I disagree that anything has changed. I'd support adding a redirect from "Mac (computer)" to this article, though. - Denimadept (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support move to Mac as proposed, as I think it is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but I oppose alternate move to Mac (computer), as the more historical current title is preferable based on WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose proposed move, support move to Mac (computer) instead. There are far too many meanings for "Mac" or "MAC" for the computer to be the primary topic. J I P  &#124; Talk 23:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Comment (since I am the proposer): reading the lead of this article again, it's even clearer to me that naming this article Macintosh is a problem; the lead overwhelmingly focuses on the Macintosh's early history, and reads more like a History section than like a lead about a very popular and culturally relevant product lineup. The whole article deserves a bit of a revamp/refresh; but this article is overwhelmingly written as it if was about the historical Macintosh lineup, as opposed to the current Mac lineup (see the lead, the far greater detail for Macintosh vs Mac products in the history section, the images all highlighting old Macintosh products, etc). That, to me, proves that the title "Macintosh" leads to confusion, and is thought by people to refer to the old lineup far more than the current one. A split between Mac (the current) and Macintosh (the old) will likely be warranted in the future and will be easy to make; but for now, the main article about the current Mac lineup should definitely not be here. There is plenty of high-quality content on the 2006 version of this page, back when it was a featured article, that was deleted in order to avoid WP:UNDUE focus on the old lineup; my move proposal to Mac or Mac (computer) would allow us to reuse the Macintosh page for the old lineup, and rescue perfectly good content from the 2006 version of this article about the old lineup, old Macintosh software, and PowerPC-era Macintosh advertising. DFlhb (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have noticed many Apple-related articles with similar issues too, relating to tons of outdated content, insufficient recent content, and no clear prose. Several articles could also be helped with a merge or split, particularly those marked as Stub or Start. Theknine2 (talk) 06:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose no clear primary topic for the short term and the longer term provides natural disambiguation.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 08:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the most common argument I see, yet I am baffled by it: WP:NATURALDIS clearly states However, do not use obscure or made-up names. "Macintosh" clearly qualifies as obscure. It cannot be used as natural disambiguation unless you can show evidence that its use in reliable sources is "common". Apple stopped calling any products "Macintosh" in 1999 (!), with the switch from Power Macintosh G3 to Power Mac G4. Reliable sources quickly shifted, since they consider "Macintosh" to refer to the old lineup, and "Mac" to refer to the current lineup; reliable sources do not treat these two terms as interchangeable (again, see the NYTimes story, where both "Macintosh" and "Mac" are used but never interchangeably; "Macintosh" is used exclusively to refer to the historical lineup ). If you talk to anyone younger than 30 or even 40 (that is, anyone who came of age after the name change) about a "macintosh", they would think you are referring to the coat; a disambiguation cannot rely on an obscure term, one that leads to confusion, or one that is practically never used. Reliable sources are extremely clear: "Mac" is the name of the lineup. "Macintosh" refers to a specific, defunct subset of the lineup; the terms are not interchangeable. DFlhb (talk) 09:05, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm younger than 30 and I'd expect this title, I've heard just "Mac" but that's an abbreviation like calling "Coca-Cola" "Coke". Britannica uses the full name. I've used a "Mac" before but not for years and I distinctly remember the "Macintosh Hardrive" icon.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 09:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Respectfully I also find this argument puzzling; it is not an abbreviation, it is the full name of the product line and has been for 23 years, in the press, in popular consciousness, and (least importantly) in marketing materials. It would be like having the iMac be at "Internet Mac" (since Apple did say that name was an abbreviation) when no reliable sources are calling it that. If Macintosh was the full name, both names would be used interchangeably, and "Macintosh" would be used almost exclusively today in high-brow publications and marketing materials, which is not the case; instead it's used exclusively to refer to a part of Apple's historic lineup (the one from 1985 to 1999, only 14 years, almost a full decade less than the 23 years the "Mac" name has been commonly used).
 * The name AT&T, for example, is more recent (2005), yet the Wiki page it at AT&T, not American Telephone and Telegraph, which has been spun off into its own article (as I suggest doing here). WP:COMMON is absolutely "Mac", not "Macintosh", by such an enormous margin that the argument seems tenuous. DFlhb (talk) 09:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Why not move to Apple Mac, which is actually the common name? But no primary topic for Mac. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong disagree that "Apple Mac" is the common name, for the same reason that "Apple iPhone" is not the common name (the iPhone is at iPhone and Apple iPhone is a redirect) or that "ThinkPad" is the common name, not "Lenovo ThinkPad".
 * You may be right that "Mac" has no truly primary topic. What do you think of Mac (computer), which follows the most common disambiguation style on Wikipedia? DFlhb (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Apple iPhone isn't the common name, I agree. Apple Mac, however, is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you show evidence of that?
 * I can't find any uses of that in WP:RS. I looked through Google News; BizzBuzz and Gizmochina do occasionally use "Apple Mac"; but they're not at all WP:RS. I've only found a few instances of "Apple Mac" ever in the WSJ, in headlines (see ; they almost exclusively say "Mac"), I'd say it's overwhelmingly uncommon and would violate the Style Manuals of practically all WP:RS. It also probably depends on country; I don't think anyone in France or Germany would ever say "Apple Mac", it just doesn't flow well in other languages; if anyone does use that term (again I haven't been able to find evidence), it's likely mostly Americans. So a move to Apple Mac likely wouldn't be feasible due to internationalization reasons (WP:WORLDWIDE). DFlhb (talk) 13:46, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Apple Mac looks pretty common to me! And is perfect natural disambiguation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Google Search results counts can be extremely unreliable depending on the query, since they're only estimates. They should only be used to compare two search queries, never to judge the prevalence of a term. When I click your link, it says "18,100,000 results". When I click page 10, it shows up as the last page, and the top now says "Page 10 of about 96 results". For the exact same query!
 * WP:RS practically never use "Apple Mac", which I think is a better way to evaluate this. DFlhb (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My point is merely that, contrary to your claim, the term is very commonly used; it wasn't meant to be any sort of comparison. The first results are from the Apple website itself. Then we have results from Amazon, Currys (a major British electronics retailer), Argos (likewise), AO (likewise), etc. All use Apple Mac. Which rather disproves your claim that reliable sources don't use it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that's the case; none of these websites refer to it as "Apple Mac"; the only 2 reason they show up are:
 * HTML tags made for search engine optimization. For example, Apple would never, ever have "Apple Mac" anywhere on its website since it violate their brand guidelines; but it still shows up since search engines are good at crawling page hierarchies, therefore an Apple website category, and a Mac subcategory, would appear to a webcrawler as "Apple -> Mac" which would show up as "Apple Mac", despite the words never actually being together on the page.
 * Stylistic choices for retailers. All the retailers you point out systematically put the manufacturer's name in article product pages, again for SEO reasons, and because most products don't actually have proper product names, just model numbers, e.g. "De'Longhi 800W Standard Microwave AM820C". That doesn't represent WP:COMMON in any way at all.
 * Due to the above, the only way we can judge whether "Apple Mac" is common is through WP:RS media sources, like NYT or WaPo, "site:nytimes.com Mac" has 35,700 search results (even after page 26), whereas "site:nytimes.com Apple Mac" has 177 results and stops at page 18, and the vast majority of those mentions are "Apple's Mac", which doesn't count. DFlhb (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support move to Mac (computer). It's been due for a while actually. --170.48.19.254 (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support move to Mac (computer). Seems clear it should be called Mac based on modern sources but I don't believe the computer is the primary topic for Mac. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayonet-lightbulb (talk • contribs) 14:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Move to Mac (computer). Moving the article to the undisambiguated Mac isn't justified, but the current title is problematic, since, as OP noted, the "Macintosh" name hasn't been used in decades. 162 etc. (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, support alternative fails PT. So can't be PT. Simple enough to go with Mac (computer) instead. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Move to Mac (computer), as per WP:COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose This product has been around for almost 40 years; history is a large part of the article, as it should be. —GoldRingChip 22:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The article's name doesn't dictate contents (we can talk as much or as little about Mac history regardless of the article name), and IMO historic usage is not part of the WP:CRITERIA for article names. DFlhb (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Move to Mac (computer) <b style="color: darkblue;">&#124; MK17b &#124;</b>  (talk)  18:03, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support move to Mac (computer). Who uses term Macintosh in 2022? Uni3993 (talk) 21:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support move to Mac (computer) per nom. Mac is the name of the computer line now and Macintosh has been retired. I oppose having the Apple line at the base name because Mac could easily refer to MAC address. cookie monster   755  05:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose clearly not the primary topic. If anything, it would be the Big Mac, frequently just shortened to "Mac"; but it would be better to keep the disambiguation page as thte base name -- 65.92.247.226 (talk) 07:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Move to Mac (computer). The move makes sense because nobody calls the computer "Macintosh" anymore and even Apple doesn't use that name anymore. However, whether or not this is the primary meaning of "Mac" is, in my opinion, debatable. Therefore, I believe the title Mac (computer) is appropriate. Aditoo17  &#91;💬&#124;✒️&#93; 19:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Naming section
I'd support keeping the Naming section as it was; it doesn't really fit well in history; and the name is still relevant for the Mac. We should definitely add a sentence to it that explains the switch to the Mac name, though DFlhb (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Fixing redirects
I'd like to be able to move History of the Macintosh to Macintosh, which currently redirects to this page. But tons of pages currently link to Macintosh. I'd appreciate if someone here who has AutoWikiBrowser could just change all those links to point directly to this article. DFlhb (talk) 18:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think that should be moved. It creates more of a clean break that there ever actually was between the classic Macintosh line and modern Macs. In fact, I'd say the other article is mistaken in its scoping of using Jobs' return as the break point. The real significant break point was the transition from Classic Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X (and subsequent revisions). That, more than new candy-colored cases, was the point where the line fundamentally changed. In other words, it's the change in the software that irrevocably altered the platform, not the hardware. oknazevad (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing


The above search query is a good way to find articles from reliable sources; that helps compensate about the lack of books covering some periods of Apple's history, like the 2005-2011 period. Make sure to play around with the search query's time range so you get relevant reuslts. The  at the end helps filter out forum results. DFlhb (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I discovered practically all the books we're using to source this are available for free on archive.org DFlhb (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)