Talk:Timeline of Macintosh models/Archive 1

Comments

Where's the LC 475? —This unsigned comment was added by 212.105.83.121 (talk • contribs) .

Omitted as being too similar to the Quadra 605. Do you think it is important to include it? -- grm_wnr Esc 11:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The antialiasing of the small text on this image leaves much to be desired. Was this image made on OS 9? Can someone post the original file so that attempts to render it with better text can be made?

Read the page source - this isn't a normal image, it's rendered on-the-fly from source code on the Wikimedia servers by a MediaWiki extension module called EasyTimeline. And there's no way to influence the output unless you patch/update the renderer (See also bugzilla:5400). -- grm_wnr Esc 13:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

First off, I think this is great and a real addition to the Mac articles on Wikipedia - thanks. Now a couple of minor issues. I somewhat agree about the text. I think its not so much an anti-aliasing issue, rather the text is too small. I haven't used the Wikimedia EasyTimeline before, so I'm not sure if this can be easily addressed. The second thing is the vertical lines denoting months make for eye-strain when reading the chart, and at this scale I don't think they add much information; can they be turned off? Maybe just leave a 6-month line?. Like I said, these are minor nits to pick. Overall, its great. Best Gwernol

Both is possible - but if the text is made larger, the text fields begin to overlap and they're already as short as possible. The timeline is already at its maximum width (1600px), so enlarging it isn't an option either. The month lines can be removed, but setting them at 6 month intervals seems illogical to me - I'll make them lighter though, that should make them less distracting. -- grm_wnr Esc 23:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

MacBook

How about adding the MacBook in-between the iBook 14 and Powerbook 12 entries. The MacBook is an extension of the iBook 12, iBook 14, and PowerBook 12 lines. Putting it in it's own branch would be appropriate. Paul^C/_T+ 21:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea, I've done so (mostly because we have the space anyway). -- grm_wnr Esc 21:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

OSs

The chart should definitely indicate what (major-version) OS(s) were shipped with each model.

Should specify which models are able to use which versions of OSX, and what models can't boot in OS9.

Good work!

Hat's off to the people involved in making these charts, they're great! Maury 13:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy Needs Checking

The PowerBook Duo line, for example, never had any product-less gap in it's entire run, much less almost a year-long period with no products as suggested by this timeline. This opens the possibility that there are other date issues as well. Should be looked into. The PowerBook Duo 280c and 280 did not share the same production run, also indicated by this timeline. I will fix this issue now and look for others. Dpaanlka 20:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I've split the 280 and 280c in the text timeline and corrected the 280c's termination date, not sure how to update the same in the graphical timeline. Dpaanlka 20:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

ANS server?

Why does the Apple Network Server appear in this chart? It was not a Mac, because it couldn't run Mac OS (It even says this in the chart).

Update Needed

07 August 2007 Apple released second-generation Intel iMacs. There are no 17-inch iMacs anymore.

Additionally, the new iMacs are NOT Santa Rosa. They are Santa Rosa compatible, but they do NOT have Santa Rosa inside --Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 22:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the sources cited on the Intel iMac Talk page, the new iMacs are Santa Rosa. How can we verify your claim? -GnuTurbo 11:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

As i said on the talk page of the iMac, none of those sources verify that it has Santa Rosa inside. They just verify that a lot of people erroneously call them Santa Rosa. As you will see if you look on the Sant Rosa wikipage, and on the Intel Santa Rosa page (http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20060307corp_b.htm), the Santa Rosa platform requires a Intel WiFi Chip. The iMacs do nothave this chip, and so they are not Santa Rosa computers. Once you provide a link verifying that they have said chip, then go ahead and call them Santa Rosa. Until then, nothing has been "verfied."--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 23:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't actually matter whether they have Santa Rosa in them. Whether they do or not, their NAME is still iMac (Mid-2007) and the name is what needs to be changed.--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 02:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Price list?

I'm curious about the historical pricing of Macs. Does anyone have a list of the original selling prices (and maybe price changes) of all or most of the Macintosh computers? I'm thinking of something with time on the x axis, and price on the y axis, with a labeledbar, dot or curve for each model. I don't know if it should be adjusted for inflation or not. Does this exist somewhere, or could someone make it? --Howdybob 03:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Naming consistency edit war

This is absurd. Look at the history and you'll find that this thing has just gone back and forth with minimal edit summaries. So I'm intervening as a neutral third party and I want you two to argue why the naming system you champion is superior so we can decide which one to use. I do not endorse one version over another; I only want this edit war to stop.--HereToHelp 15:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for offering your help. I believe protection came just a tad late as it appears we have in the meantime come to some sort of agreement: The chipset and/or platform is not being used at all in the names. Instead we are resorting to Apple's scheme "Early 2006", "Mid 2006", and "Mid 2007" for the iMacs and MBP. From what I gather from the iMac and MBP talk pages everybody should be ok with this. Any objections or additions? --129.129.128.64 15:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care about the content (it seems rather trivial to me), just that whatever is decided is agreeable to all parties involved. I would like to have more than a few minutes to allow involved parties to give their opinion.--HereToHelp 15:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not object. I do not think it fits well with the naming that had been done on this page before. But it seems like the only middle ground we have. Long live Santa Rosa! ;-) -GnuTurbo 16:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright then. I'll unprotect the page.--HereToHelp 21:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

128K Discontinuation Date

I updated the discontinuation date of the 128K, but can't for the life of me figure out how to change the bar graph to reflect it. The Colour Classic II is also incorrect and does not reconcile with its introduction and discontinuation dates. --Woodwynlane 00:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Performa 630

My first Macintosh computer was the Performa 630, which we bought in December 1994. It doesn't seem to appear in the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.210.163 (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Apple products timeline?

What about making a whole new list of apple products? I noticed that the mouse, keyboard and other things were missing.

if you are interested, just tell me thru my talk page. thanks --Kelvin_HO^{Wiknerd(talk)} 07:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Macintosh vs. Macintosh 128K

Should the timeline take into account the difference between the Macintosh introduced January 1984 and the Macintosh 128K introduced along with the Macintosh 512K in September 1984?

The reality is, the Macintosh 128K is an actual model with a distinct eponymous label from the original Macintosh.

Granted they are essentially the same computer, the later being retroactively re-badged after the release of the 512K (though if you ask me, Macintosh and Macintosh 512K, seem pretty clear to me). Nevertheless, Apple did it. Further, the re-branded 128K had a completely different logic board from the original, with minor improvements, though the RAM was still a permanent feature. However, upgrading the RAM was easier than on the previous model. Together the new case label and re-designed logicboard clearly make this a unique computer. Modern collectors would definitely make a distinction and savvy buyers at the time would have as well, since the newly branded 128K could be much more easily upgraded to 512K since the logicboard did double duty for both Macs. There is also historical notability.--Mac128 (talk) 05:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)