Template talk:Apple hardware since 1998

Notebook is a case type, Professional is a market target
MacBook Pro and Power Mac G5 is also professionals, so I divided notebook computers into two: Consumer Notebok and Porfessional Notebooks. Applist (talk) 06:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Newtons
Should the various Newtons be included here? -- Hoshie 04:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No. This template is meant to connect the hardware developed by the new Apple.  The Newton MessagePads and eMate were developed before Steve Jobs's return, and he discontinued them in February 1998.  —RadRafe

Bug in wikipedia?
When comparing the table to the source, it shows that for some reason, the first item of every row has been ommitted. I fixed this up by doubling up each first item so it would show as it was intended. Then someone reverted it... what gives? --The Land of Smeg 15:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * When using pipe "|" as item separator, things may get messed up, as MediaWiki uses the same symbol for its table formatting. And the usual way to work around the "bugs" is, like you did, to start the problematic lines with "||" instead of "|". Another option is to use another item separator, fx "·" or "•". --Fred Bradstadt 06:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Apple Tv
Just to let you all know, I removed the bold italics on it because it is shipping now. Telepheedian 17:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

iPhone
I put iPhone in bold italics because it has been announced but not released yet WazzaMan 18:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

iPhone Accessories
There is a link to iPhone accessories that links to a non-existent section in the iPhone article. There is also a link to iPhree, a non-Apple accessory. I will be removing both for the reason that the first links to a section that is no longer in the iPhone article and the second is a non-Apple product and the place it is in is for Apple products.-- _ B a R i M z I _ 23:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Template update
I just converted this to a real navbox for the sake of readability / maintainability and was blanket reverted with the summary "eugh. ugly". It's much easier to take my version and make it "pretty" than it was to take the old one and make it readable or maintainable. I'm reverting this: please consider simply adding align attributes and changing the colours if there's a problem with how it looks rather than reverting. Chris Cunningham 12:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

MacBook Pro (Mid 2007) / iMac (Mid 2007) compromise
In the spirit of compromise, I propose changing the Intel codename to simply 2007 as a shortened form of Mid 2007. This way a part of the terminology Apple uses to refer to the model is used rather than an editor's preferred Intel codename. Both codenames are currently subject to source disputes. Whereas, both models have only had t.apple.com/specs/MacBookPro/ one update this year. -GnuTurbo 17:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn. See below. Apple has confirmed MacBook Pro is Santa Rosa. -GnuTurbo 00:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. That makes most sense as normal consumers have no idea what chipsets mean, simply when they bought their system. Further Apple names their generation by release date. I have never seen a statement from Apple stating that our new MBP's or Intel iMacs use such and such chipset/platform. Naming it that way is incorrect since the manfacturer does not do it in such a manner and introduces confusion. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That idea will only work if you can guarantee there will be no more revisions this year. Just as it was a stupid idea to use C2D as a moniker, it will be a bad idea to use 2007 if there are two revisions in 2007. AFAIC it would be fine once Dec arrives and we know there is only one 2007 revision. Until then, it's a gamble. That said, what's so wrong with using official Apple terminology? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.140.109 (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As discussed on your talk page, will you accept Mid 2007? -GnuTurbo 22:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn. See below.  Apple has confirmed MacBook Pro is Santa Rosa. -GnuTurbo 00:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Does not agree. For the template, this compromise is unacceptable. If you notice, either processors (i.e. G3, G4, G5), design traits (i.e. Tray, Slot, Dual USB), or codenames (i.e. Lombard, Wall Street, Pismo) are used. Under those three established categories, what do you propose we use for the iMac and MacBook Pro? Mid 2007 is more confusing than Crestline, IMO. If you want your compromise, do it in a more elegant manner. If that's the case, then have Core Duo and Core 2 Duo as separate generations and put the different Core 2 versions by Apple's support terminology. Butterfly0fdoom 23:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is my proposed change for the template box. The only problem I have is a processor change used to entail a complete case redesign, but this change conforms the closest to the previous way the template was maintained.

 -Butterfly0fdoom 00:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Apple has confirmed the MacBook Pro is Santa Rosa. So any compromise change has to take that into account.  Since the new iMac uses both Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme processors, depending on configuration, Mid 2007 does differentiate it from the prior iMac that used only Core 2 Duo.  So only two changes are necesssary.  For the latest model, in the MacBook Pro section insert Santa Rosa and in the iMac section insert whatever version of 2007 we can agree upon. -GnuTurbo 00:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, your previous statement got me thinking that it makes no sense that we use Santa Rosa, since the commonfolk don't know what Santa Rosa is. I feel my proposal is much better since is conforms best to the previously established means of formatting the template, regardless of whether or not the MBP uses Santa Rosa. That can be addressed in the MBP article. The point of this template is to direct people to the page for the product they want to read about, after all. Thus my proposal is the most appropriate and it is the easiest to expand upon as Apple continues to introduce new products. After all, Penryn is coming soon and will find its way into the MBP and iMac, yet that uses the Crestline chipset and the Santa Rosa platform. My proposal accomondates such updates in the best way possible. Unless you have a better idea. Butterfly0fdoom 00:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure what common folks you are referring to. The forums and discussion boards are filled with people referring to both the iMac and MacBook Pro as Santa Rosa, far more numerous than any other moniker.  Santa Rosa is sourced by numerous publications, unlike the other term that has been proposed; i.e., there are no sources for Crestline.  Now even Apple says Santa Rosa.  So Santa Rosa it is.  I am happy to work out a compromise with you on the iMac, even despite the numerous publications which say the iMac is Santa Rosa.  It would be good to have the edit warring stop.  But as far as the MacBook Pro is concerned, Apple says it is Santa Rosa.  There is no more compromise there. -GnuTurbo 01:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess you don't realize I don't mean a compromise right now. I'm taking about the future-proofing of this template. When the MacBook Pro and the iMac are updated to use Penryn chips (which is a really minor thing, actually) or the Montevina platform (which really isn't all that major, either), both of which are still Core 2, what do you suggest we say in the template? We need something consistent. Therefore, given the way Apple has been releasing their Intel-based products, using "Early/Mid/Late (insert year)" names for the template is the most logical solution. The Santa Rosa/Crestline issue has demonstrated we need to devise a new consistent method for referring to products in the template. You need to offer a solution and stop obsessing over Santa Rosa. Butterfly0fdoom 01:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, if you want to adopt early year, late year, mid year across the board, that is your cup of tea. I like to follow the actually established conventions.  But be my guest, make the iMac and MacBook Pro based on the  naming Apple's support site uses.  Just be consistent and use sources that Wikiepdia recognizes. -GnuTurbo 04:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There are no conventions for what's going on now with Apple. Which is why, with this issue at hand, we need to establish a convention, and this is the most logical and most future-proof one (not to mention the most neutral, as it fails to mention either Crestline or Santa Rosa). So, now, with your given approval, the new template will be implement and all discussions regarding Santa Rosa will be kept to the computer that the argument pertains to. I don't need you to tell me to be consistent or to use sources Wikipedia recognizes. Save your preachy BS for the articles where it matters. Butterfly0fdoom 04:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Since it has been confirmed as factual information, it's important to put it on Wikipedia. --DogGunn 00:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The only thing that has been confirmed as factual information is that many people (inlcuding at least one Apple employee) have used the Santa Rosa moniker erroneously. See for example TidBITS: Confusion Over Santa Rosa: What's in a Name? --84.73.140.109 08:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge accessories?
would it make sense to merge the accessories sections like so:  I don't really think the small number of general accessories needs its own section.. Thoughts? Paul C/T+ 15:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Template has become ambiguous and inconsistent
User Butterfly0fdoom has applied several rather erratic changes to the template. Now before this becomes an edit war or the mess gets even bigger, I'd like to know how we can remove the ambiguities from the template. I would also advise said user to be more careful and think first before editing (as observed on the Intel-based iMac page where he reverted his own edits for no obvious reason after shouting to others to "stop it"). IMHO these are the most striking issues with the current template: I would like to read comments here about how this template can be changed so that is is both consistent in itself and unambiguous. Before that I don't want to see any more knee jerk-edits or I will request protection.84.73.140.109 07:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The current iMac is now referred to as "iMac Core 2 Aluminum". What happens when the next revision of the iMac has a Core 2 and an aluminum case? This moniker is ambiguous. But it wouldn't be an issue if we'd use the "Late 2007" label
 * The MacBook has two entries: Core and Core 2. However, we're actually talking about four different generations here. Arbitrary and ambiguous. Again using labels like "Late 2007" would mitigate this problem.
 * The MacBook Pro has two entries: Core and Core 2. However, we're actually talking about three different generations here. Arbitrary and ambiguous. Again using labels like "Late 2007" would mitigate this problem.
 * Many of the other models (especially the older ones) seem to be differentiated only when the case changed substantially (for example the PB G4 has only Ti and Al entries). This is fine with me, but then it also has to be done that way on the newer models, IOW only one MB entry and only one MBP entry.


 * I think going by processor or case changes is better. If we were to list every single revision, the template would be too bulky. You don't see any changes for processor/graphics upgrade/refreshes for the PPC era in the template, thus removing those for the Intel era is more appropriate. If the next revision of the iMac still uses Core 2 and an aluminum case, then it just stays like that. You don't see every Slot-loading iMac G3 revision listed in the template. Processor bump is a revision. Graphics upgrade is a revision. Processor family change is a generation and merits a new entry. Case change merits a new entry. That's what I changed it to. You might think it's more ambiguous now, but (1) it makes more sense than having a bunch of entries on the template that link to the same article since the MB and MBP articles use a table (which someone proposed be done to the iMac (Intel-based) article, which has yet to be done) and (2) it's a lot less cluttered/confusing. Thus, new processor family (i.e. Core 3) or case change (like if MacBooks were changed to Aluminum) would merit a new entry, whereas a platform change (like Napa to Crestline) where the marketing doesn't really change wouldn't. And I think the template in its current state reflects that better (and I think it's actually more consistent like this since now the entries address case or processor family changes). More consistency would involve putting the PM G3 and PM G4 case changes, too:


 * Sorry about my erratic editing nature, too. >.> I've just been on a paranoid fritz after the SR thing and editing before I think. >.> Butterfly0fdoom 01:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Template Formatting?
Sardanaphalus has implemented the following change:  As I disagree with this change for I feel it causes some formatting clutter in the category columns, I have relocated the changes that Sardanaphalus implemented here to the talk page for further discussion. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've recently had second thoughts about (over!)using subgroups in templates and now agree they tend to work better without them. I'm not so sure about the bracketed lists in the template that don't wrap, however; depending on browser/window/screen size, they can produce some strange-looking gaps. I volunteer to work my way through the Apple-related templates and allow them to wrap. Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Wikipedia has some general formatting issues (i.e. timelines can't render until you tweak the dates or names or sizes). It's rather sporadic. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 05:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Why 1998?
Why exactly did we go with 1998 as the cutoff year between the 2 templates? It's a rather irregular number. The turn of the 3rd Millennium was, of course, 2000. So, what makes 1998 a better cutoff than 2000? I don't really have an opinion. I'm just curious, and I'd like to be sure that everything is logically well considered. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Because Apple Products in 1997 and 1999 are very different given Steve Jobs and the iMac. It represented a new era for Apple in a way. Subscribe to me (talk) 12:35, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if changing iMac "G3" to Original will offend WP:COMMONNAME.
I'm not saying that I'll move the page "iMac G3" to "iMac (Original). However, I'm not sure if "G3" is the common name of the iMac (Original to Summer 2001). In the template, it is G3, but I'll suggest Original . iMac G4 is likely a more common name for the Flat Panel iMac, and iMac G5 is exactly both the common and official name. Also, 1st may be inappropriate for "First generation", which will confuse people thinking there is only 4 iPads, one being Air and one being 2. I will suggest Original to replace 1st but keeping the article name.

Thank you! Cloud Compu  tation, 04:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Should the iPad have it's own section?
There have been so many iPads that it might warrant it's own section. It's also ill-fitting to label the iPad Pro as a consumer device. Subscribe to me (talk) 12:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Herbfur (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

New collapsing logic
I added this feature, then full-expanded template can be added with using of

instead of

, but template can be used for only smartphones or accessories list, using

What do You think? 89.179.105.144 (talk) 10:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)