Talk:iMac (Intel-based)

Hello all, I am requesting that someone more versed in Wikipedia editing add a column to the Aluminum iMac Specifications table for the mid-2009 iMac. While it shares most of its specifications with the early 2009 model, it has in fact a slightly different specs in processor power, is missing the infrared sensor, and no built in Bluetooth. The model line numbers are also different from the early 2009 iMacs (MC015/LL*). I also have seen references to other educational models in different specifications tables on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RocketeerBama (talk • contribs) 12:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

iMac Santa Rosa

I have boldly changed references to the latest iMac to iMac Santa Rosa. This better encompasses the technological changes, particularly the high end option for a Core 2 Extreme processor. An alternative name change that occurred to me after editing the Macintosh Timeline is iMac Core 2 Second Generation. Thoughts? Comments? Apple is referring to the new line as iMac Mid 2007. -GnuTurbo 20:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed it back. They do not have the Santa Rosa chipsets in them. Apple refers to them as Mid-2007, and they are. --Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 22:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, but they do have the Santa Rosa chipsets in them. And there are many other sources that confirm. Because of this, I am reverting your change. Please note additionally that the mid-2007 moniker was not previously applied to these models on this article. -GnuTurbo 19:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The iMac has a Crestline chipset, but it doesn't use the Santa Rosa platform. See wikipedia's own page on Sant Rosa. The iMac does not have Intel Wifi, as is required for Santa Rosa. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Centrino#Santa_Rosa_platform_.282007.29 --Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 01:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Making reference to Wikipedia's page on Santa Rosa does not resolve the issue. I have provided ample verifiable sources in support of my claim. To convincingly contradict my claim you will need to provide verification from outside Wikipedia. You will also need to avoid original research. -GnuTurbo 11:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that my research is not valid, however, neither is yours. In all your links, it is only CALLED santa rosa, just as you are (incorrectly) calling it. Show some links about the insides of the iMac and the requirements for Santa Rosa and how it meets said requirements. Until then , I am reverting your change and am going to do research on my end.--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 15:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Adam is right, it does not use the full Santa Rosa specs - it is often (erroneously) called that because it shares many things in common. 216.99.217.92 16:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20060307corp_b.htm Prove to me it has the Intel WiFi, and you can call it Santa Rosa. --Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 17:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[margin] I do not have to "prove" to you it has Intel WiFi. You are claiming the new iMac does not use the Santa Rosa platform. Multiple sources say otherwise. So my claim is verifiable. So far your claim is not. The only article you have cited outside Wikipedia is an Intel press release from a year and a half prior to the release of the new iMac. Your article says nothing about the iMac. It appears to me you need to find multiple reliable sources that say the iMac is not based on Santa Rosa or is based on something else before you can substantiate your claim. Even then, you may only have established controversy. Something that so far does not exist according to the cited sources. -GnuTurbo 00:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you realize that none of your sources say or prove that the iMac uses the Santa Rosa platform? They just call it the "imac Santa Rosa." I'm not going to argue with you any more, but none of your links prove that the iMac has Santa Rosa. To verify that it has Santa Rosa, you need to link to a source that says "The iMac runs on the Santa Rosa platform." I am changing the name back to mid-2007, because that is the name. Once I find a source, and I will be looking, as you should be too, because neither of us have any evidence at tis point, I will change the processor info, too.--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 02:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have edited out all references to Santa Rosa, and until we get this straightened out, I don't think it needs to be put back in. I have sourced the fact that it uses Intel Core 2 Duo and have changed the title to reflect the actual name (iMac (Mid-2007)) I have also added a note about discussing any santa rosa edits on the talk page first. --Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 02:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not proof. Wikipedia is verifiability. You keep saying I need to prove something. I do not. All I need do is provide verifiability. I have. Many times over. If you are not going to argue with me anymore, I will take that as an admission that you will now follow the rules instead of making up your own. From the reference I added to the article (also one of the links above) before you reverted my edits:

The systems contain the same Intel Santa Rosa-based internals as the MacBook Pro, with Core 2 Duo processors at up to 2.4GHz.

Statement from another reference linked above:

So what kind of pricing and specs will we see inside the iMacs? They’ll have Santa Rosa chips running at up to 2.8Ghz, and up to 4GB of RAM and 1TB of storage.

Statement from another reference linked above:

Like the recently released MacBook Pro, the new iMacs use Intel's Santa Rosa/Centrino Duo platform. That means a higher front side bus speed, integrated support for 802.11n, and future drop-in support for Penryn when Intel's 45nm CPUs begin shipping later this year.

Statement from another reference linked above:

while it may sound odd to refer to a desktop Mac as getting a Santa Rosa update, that is exactly what is going on with Steve Job’s latest,

Statement from another reference linked above:

The new 24-inch iMacs sport two major advantages over the older 24-inch iMacs; they have faster processors, and they use the new Santa Rosa chipset (instead of the Napa chipset used in the older 24-inch iMacs).

Statement from another reference linked above:

Apple's new iMacs will likely sell well amongst potential 'switchers' as well as college students hoping to acquire new computers before heading back to the classroom, according to American Technology Research senior analyst Shaw Wu. Apple CEO Steve Jobs unveiled the sleek new systems yesterday during a special event at the company's campus in Cupertino, CA. "We find the new iMacs impressive with their thinner and sleeker aluminum and glass enclosure (similar to iPhone), new Intel Santa Rosa platform with faster Core 2 Duo processors, advanced ATI Radeon HD graphics, and lower price points," Wu wrote in a research note obtained by MacNN.

By some cosmic misalignment, it may turn out the information in these links is incorrect. But until you can provide some sources to show this, Santa Rosa is both the name and platform the latest iMac is based on. If you wish to reach a compromise, you are going to have to discuss it here with me first before reverting my edits based on your faulty reasoning and lack of sources. Btw, the change you are suggesting for the name is much broader than you realize. To be minimally consistent, you would need to rename iMac Core Duo to iMac (Early 2006), iMac Core 2 Duo to iMac (Late 2006), and since you want to follow Apple's support website's naming conventions, the iMac Santa Rosa is actually iMac (20-inch Mid 2007). You have taken the context of Apple providing support for a product and decided as an edit it is the best way for the public at large to refer to these models. I gotta say, I completely disagree with you here. And so have all of the other editors to the Intel iMac article until you arrived here. -GnuTurbo 01:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm having someone with a new iMac run a test on it to see about the WiFi. when he gets the results, I will source them, and we will decide then.--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 19:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You need to read this again: no original research. If somehow you and your friend overcome the verifiability problems of conducting your own research (for instance, your friend has access to a well-known publication that accepts his work), you still have to overcome the undue weight requirements and maintain a neutral point of view. There are a lot of problems with what you are proposing. It seems unlikely any decision will be made in your favor. -GnuTurbo 23:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to invest any more time in this. If I come across a "well known publication" I'll get back to you. I'm not going to fight with you, as you seem to have plenty of time to revert and revert. However, if the iMac in question ITSELF states IN its OWN firmware that it does NOT meet the requirements for Santa Rosa, as seen here: http://forums.macnn.com/58/imac-emac-and-mac-mini/346932/what-is-the-name-new-imac/#post3477399, then I don't think the "Original Research" GUIDELINE (i.e. not rule) should usurp that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamfc (talk • contribs) 20:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That was amusing. I actually thought you were going to point me at this forum thread. What I would suggest is gather your best evidence (try to find a more recent Intel article) and email that to the various editors/authors of the articles I have cited and see if you can convince them to change their position on whether the new iMac is Santa Rosa or not. I am not sure if this kind of "tampering" is legit, but you could probably if you are successful at least establish controversy, even if you are a part of it. iMac Crestline, anyone? ;-) -GnuTurbo 23:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I am, however, going to change the NAME of the iMac on this page because it doesn't follow naming convwentions previously used here. The other iMacs here are named core duo and core 2 duo, respectively. Those are processors. Then this one is named Santa Rosa, which is a platform. So I am changing the name to Core 2 Duo (Aluminum) (the processor, followed by Aluminum to differentiate it.)--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 02:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The new iMac, at least the 24-inch model, uses both Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme processors. Also, as noted in the link you provided, aluminum is a bad way to differentiate the model since it is very likely the next models will also continue to be aluminum. It also does not tell us about the technology inside, whereas Core Duo, Core 2 Duo, and Santa Rosa do. Reverted. -GnuTurbo 17:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

GnuTurbo: Do you dispute that Santa Rosa requires Intel wifi or that the iMac has non-Intel wifi? Once you put the two of those together, you must come to the conclusion that the iMac does not deserve the Santa Rosa brand. Mduell2 20:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because a few people in journalism have been sloppy and referred to the current iMac as using Santa Rosa doesn't mean that the wikipedia should. You can't show that the iMac uses Santa Rosa because you can't show the iMac uses Intel's wifi, a necessary component to be branded as Santa Rosa. Call it Crestline, Aluminum, or Mid-2007, but don't call it something that it has been shown not to be. 24.128.81.148 20:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Please Stop Spreading Misinformation

There is no such thing as a "Santa Rosa chipset". Santa Rosa is a platform. This platform consists (among other things) of a Crestline chipset. If you want to call the iMac by its chipset, call it Crestline. In addition, Santa Rosa is a Centrino platform. Centrino requires Intel CPU, chipset, and WiFi card. Apple has never *ever* used an Intel wireless chipset hence not a single Mac can be called Centrino at all (that's also why you never see Apple using the Centrino moniker or label). Therefore this iMac also can certainly not be Santa Rosa.

Also, please don't tell me that many Mac sites call it Santa Rosa. That's entirely irrelevant because there's ample proof that it can't be:

• Intel Santa Rosa specs showing SR requires Intel WiFi chipset: http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20060307corp_b.htm
• New iMac doesn't have Intel WiFi: http://forums.macnn.com/58/imac-emac-and-mac-mini/346932/what-is-the-name-new-imac/#post3477399

The reason they are doing this is because for a long time all Intel released was the platform name Santa Rosa. The Crestline codename was only published later. By that time everybody had already started using Santa Rosa for the platform and th chipset. In the PC world this isn;t such a problem, because most notebooks not only use Crestline, but also the Intel Kedron WiFi chipset and are actually Centrinos (Santa Rosa). The iM<ac and MacBook Pro however, definitely don't use Intel's Kedron, but an Atheros chipset.

It is understandable how so many sites started publishing the wrong name and using the wrong chipset codename., Nevertheless, the facts are clear and there is zero doubt that

• SR isn't a chipset
• Macs don't use Intel WiFi chipsets.--84.73.140.109 20:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"Santa Rosa" iMacs

There is a discussion on whether the latest revision of the iMacs should be referred to as "Santa Rosa" iMacs. Evidence that they do not fit the description is being ignored with the "Original Research" policy as an argument.

It appears you have not correctly applied the request for comment tag or signed your comment. Your definition of "evidence" is not applicable to Wikipedia if you think I am ignoring it. So far as this online encyclopedia is concerned, you have not provided any evidence in support of your claim certain info should be included in the article. Forum threads are not evidence here. Old press releases that do not mention the article topic are not evidence here. You are inferring certain things and making those inferences is against the rules here. You must provide reliable published sources to support your claims. I have. You have not. My claim may be wrong because my reliable published sources may be wrong. But you have no claim so far as Wikipedia is concerned because your counterclaim is wholly unsupported. You do not have any reliable published sources making your claim. Find some or kindly withdraw. -GnuTurbo 00:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, GnuTurbo. If you invest your time in Wikipedia, you want to see it have the correct info, right? You have a lot of people on this page telling you that the iMac does not have Santa Rosa inside. I have provided you the link to Intel's Own website stating the requirements for Santa Rosa. So far, no one agrees with you that the requirements are met. Specifically, we have stated that the WiFi chip is not inside. Why don't you prove yourself right, and us wrong, but sourcing a website that specifically states that the iMac meets the requirements for Santa Rosa. Or send an email to Apple. And if you don't, I already have, and I will put it on my website and link to it as a source when I recieve a response. --Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 19:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you prove your [claim by] sourcing a website that specifically states that the iMac [contains the] Santa Rosa [chipset]?

To reiterate:

From the reference I added to the article [...] :

The systems contain the same Intel Santa Rosa-based internals as the MacBook Pro, with Core 2 Duo processors at up to 2.4GHz.

Statement from another reference linked above:

So what kind of pricing and specs will we see inside the iMacs? They’ll have Santa Rosa chips running at up to 2.8Ghz, and up to 4GB of RAM and 1TB of storage.

Statement from another reference linked above:

Like the recently released MacBook Pro, the new iMacs use Intel's Santa Rosa/Centrino Duo platform. That means a higher front side bus speed, integrated support for 802.11n, and future drop-in support for Penryn when Intel's 45nm CPUs begin shipping later this year.

Statement from another reference linked above:

while it may sound odd to refer to a desktop Mac as getting a Santa Rosa update, that is exactly what is going on with Steve Job’s latest,

Statement from another reference linked above:

The new 24-inch iMacs sport two major advantages over the older 24-inch iMacs; they have faster processors, and they use the new Santa Rosa chipset (instead of the Napa chipset used in the older 24-inch iMacs).

Statement from another reference linked above:

Apple's new iMacs will likely sell well amongst potential 'switchers' as well as college students hoping to acquire new computers before heading back to the classroom, according to American Technology Research senior analyst Shaw Wu. Apple CEO Steve Jobs unveiled the sleek new systems yesterday during a special event at the company's campus in Cupertino, CA. "We find the new iMacs impressive with their thinner and sleeker aluminum and glass enclosure (similar to iPhone), new Intel Santa Rosa platform with faster Core 2 Duo processors, advanced ATI Radeon HD graphics, and lower price points," Wu wrote in a research note obtained by MacNN.

Now it is up to you to provide sources that talk about the iMac and also support whatever claim you wish to support. -GnuTurbo 04:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It has been repeatedly pointed out by SEVERAL USERS HERE that those sources are simply wrong due to a misunderstanding of what Santa Rosa actually means (platform vs. chipset). Sources have been supplied to prove this. In fact every Mac owner can easily verify by himself/herself that their Mac isn't Santa Rosa/Centrino compliant. The fact that you *alone* stubbornly resist to understand that makes assuming 'good faith' increasingly difficult.--84.73.140.109 04:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Those all call the update Santa Rosa, because except for the WiFi card it is. Can you find a source showing all of the iMac's components SPECIFICALLY, and show that they all match up with Intel's Santa Rosa requirements? By the by, I'm still waiting for an answer from the Apple Press Contact. Oh, and also, Santa Rosa-based means that is is near to Santa Rosa. They have it right. The internals are Santa Rosa BASED. There's just ONE modification... The WiFi card. --Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 04:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

They call it Santa Rosa because that is what it is. I do not have to source each of the iMac's components. I only have to find sources that say the iMac is Santa Rosa. I have. It is your turn now. Find sources that mention the iMac and your claim. -GnuTurbo 04:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It really isn't much of an issue people, simply compromise of the wording. It's technically called crestline chipset, which is part of the Santa Rosa platform. Thus why not include that statement in the article and be done with it? Doing otherwise is disregarding the entire Mac community who refers to these models as Santa Rosa models, but on the flip side not mentioning Crestline would be incorrect. Therefore add both, which makes the article complete, technically correct and puts an end to this bitch fest. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nja247 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The way we have it now is factually correct and still mentions Santa Rosa. Can we agree to keep it this way?--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 12:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Why drag Santa Rosa into the Mac pages at all? Just because they use Crestline does not mean they have anything to do with Santa Rosa. A SR computer requires Crestline, but just because a computer has Crestline, does not make it SR. I suggest for the new Macs we use Crestline which is *technically correct* and then link from Crestline to the Centrino page (since there is no Crestline page) where people can read that Crestline is a chipset and also happens to be the chipset that SR requires. That way people won't be confused by a platform Apple doesn't use and they won't get the impression Macs are actually part of the Santa Rosa platform (or Centrino).--84.73.140.109 15:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You need sources that say the iMac has a Crestline chipset. At present, it appears you are relying on the sources that say the iMac is Santa Rosa to draw your conclusion the chipset is Crestline. -GnuTurbo 15:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay listen. I am accepting that the Crestline chipset is used (even without sources), however as indicated in your Wiki link it's (Crestline) part of the Santa Rosa platform. So why not mention it. Saying that it is confusing is your point of view. Further you asked "why bring SR into it" --- because the Mac community as a whole refer to the new models as Santa Rosa. Go to discussions.apple.com, the official Apple forums and you will notice users referring to the new models, especially the MacBook Pro's as "Santa Rosa". This is just how it is and you need to accept it. Further, it's technically correct and more thourough to state Crestline, part of Santa Rosa.

There is no reason whatsoever for you to continue to disagree with what is a reasonable compromise. The statement that the Macbook Pro and iMac "use the Crestline chipset, which is part of the SR platform" not only resolves all issues, but it more thourough and encyclopedic. You need to review Wikipedia guidelines and accept this compromise as you nor no one owns this article WP:OWN. Wikipedia is built upon verifiability and consensous and I believe this has been reached, so think hard about it before continuing this quite pointless dispute. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It is technically NOT CORRECT to call any Mac Santa Rosa because they are simply not SR. SR requires Intel WiFi and ample source show no Mac actually does. Just because a lot of people have repeated a mistake made by a few, does not make it correct. WP should give correct information, not help spread misinformation.--84.73.140.109 16:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You say it's incorrect, but click your Wikilink for Crestline and tell me where it links to? Does it link to the Santa Rosa platform? Yes it does. Stating facts is not misinformation. I really don't understand the point you're trying to make? How is it incorrect to state the fact that "The Crestline chipset is PART OF THE SANTA ROSA PLATFORM?!?!?" You are starting to disrupt Wikipedia by removing factual information and continuing to revert could get you blocked from editing. There is no reason that you cannot compromise since my proposed compromise included your point of view as well as that of the other editors, myself included. Also, I ran "Santa Rosa MacBook Pro" into google and got numerous sources, however "Crestline MacBook Pro" returns only a few forum posts (which are not encyclopedic) and a couple real sources which clearly stated "Crestline, part of the Santa Rosa platform". The point I'm making is that your knowledge is not in the majority, and thus not including a mention of Santa Rosa would cause confusion. Further not mentioning that Crestline is part of Santa Rosa is not very thorough and is not the way an encyclopedia should be written.

A sample of real sources from a "Santa Rosa MacBook Pro" hit on google (over 15 pages):

http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/editors/2007/06/mbpupdate/index.php http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/macbook-pro-santa-rosa.ars http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/santa-rosa/new-apple-macbook-pros-with-led+backlit-display-265939.php http://news.worldofapple.com/archives/2007/05/09/macbook-pro-rumours-in-light-of-santa-rosa-launch/ http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=3747 http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/05/09/intel_rolls_out_santa_rosa_notebook_platform_macs_to_benefit.html http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/reviews/index.cfm?reviewid=975 http://www.barefeats.com/santarosa.html http://crave.cnet.co.uk/laptops/0,39029450,49290900,00.htm http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/22/santa-rosa-based-macbook-pro-review-roundup/ http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/mobiletechreview_new_apple_macbook_pro_santa_rosa_buy_it/ http://stuff.tv/news/macbook-pro-makes-it-to-santa-rosa/default.aspx http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/06/1257243&from=rss http://www.looprumors.com/index.php?apple-releases-santa-rosa-macbook-pro-with-led-dis http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/06/_apple_macbook.html http://lowendmac.com/bookrev/07/0608.html

others, just got tired. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

I believe enough articles and websites have been provided to show that the chipset is, in fact, Santa Rosa. I looked around a bit, and I cannot find any articles that use "Crestline"; rather, they all use "Santa Rosa." As per Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, it seems apparent to me that "Santa Rosa" should be included on the page. I would implore 84.73.140.109 to calm down a bit and to read and understand the articles on verifiability and on original research. Additionally, everyone here should understand the three revert rule; I see some users here have come close to violating the rule, and I'd remind you that exceeding three reverts in a day will get you banned for 24 hours. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 19:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Reality flash: There is no such thing as a Santa Rosa chipset. Santa Rosa is a code name for a feature list. One requirement in that list is the Crestline chipset. This is all sourced on intel.com. Only people w/o a clue about Intel don't know these simple facts. I don't really care about the threats. I can live with a ban and hop to the next public IP if it means making sure WP doesn't spread misinformation simply becxause a couple of illiterate kids are on a power trip. There are tons of sources that claim Auschwitz never was a concentration camp. And yet, we still know it was. I don't care what Macworld.com says. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "SANTA ROSA CHIPSET". If you can't accept that, you're - excuse my French - an idiot.--84.73.140.109 22:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

A search on intel.com for "Santa Rosa" yields 32 results; a search for "crestline" only yields four. On apple.com, a search for "crestline" yields fifteen results, all of which are music; searching for "Santa Rosa" yields 138 results, of which 38 are under the company section. So I'll ask again: can you link us to any specific articles to prove your point? If you can't, then it's not admissible on Wikipedia. And just so you know, that attitude won't get you far here. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 22:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Indeed, but physical evidence has been established that the iMac does NOT use the Santa Rosa platform. Just look on the Centrino page yourself. Apple does not use a Intel wireless card. It's been proven. THEREFORE, the iMac has the Crestline chipset (established by the Centrino article), but not the Santa Rosa platform. By the way, the search results on Apple's page for Santa Rosa refer to the city of Santa Rosa or cities with the name Santa _______, nothing about Intel. Butterfly0fdoom 23:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow self-referencing, and even if it did, that particular line on the Centrino page is unsourced. Besides, it just says that Crestline is a codename. The "Crestline" link on this page just redirects to the section on the Santa Rosa platform. If the Crestline chipset is so important, why is there no separate article or section on it? Sidenote: I don't follow your logic: Apple doesn't use an Intel wireless card, so therefore it's the Crestline chipset? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 00:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, my logic is actually just that since Apple doesn't use an Intel wireless chip, any references to Centrino are limited to the Crestline chipset, which Apple does use. On Intel's own website are the three components to earning the Centrino branding: (http://www.intel.com/products/centrino/duo/index.htm) Apple uses two of them. Because they don't use Intel's wireless card, Apple can only advertise they use Intel's Core architecture, which they do. Butterfly0fdoom 05:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a source that gives some detail on the keynote that announced Santa Rosa. It backs up what our Centrino page says, Santa Rosa is a platform that combines a processor, a chipset (Crestline) and a wireless chip (Kedron). http://news.zdnet.co.uk/communications/0,1000000085,39256268,00.htm AlistairMcMillan 01:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That source suffers from the same defect an earlier source had. It is from before Santa Rosa came out. So it is speculative. Without this defect, the problem of no mention of iMac in the source still remains. Wikiepdia cannot be a generator of original thought on a topic. -GnuTurbo 03:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the "original thought" here is that the iMac uses Santa Rosa. Intel invests a lot in its advertising for Centrino. Before the new Centrino platform was released, Intel threw around the Santa Rosa name constantly. But the key deficiency is Apple does not use Intel's wireless chip. I honestly don't see why we are spending so much time arguing over this. If we remove all references to Centrino (which would entail removing references to Crestline and Santa Rosa), then this issue is nonexistent. Easiest solution.Butterfly0fdoom 05:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

BOD is right. Apple don't use the phrases "Centrino" or "Santa Rosa" anywhere on their website. AlistairMcMillan 11:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I am replying to HelloAnnyong here, because the threading in this section is a bit wonky and because this will be a lot of text. Santa Rosa is Intel's codename for a specific version of its Centrino brand (Centrino Pro, to be very specific). This press release details what is required (Core 2 Duo, Mobile Intel 965 Express chipset, specific wired and wireless networking adapters); the same information is available in the "Intel Centrino Pro" column of this table (Intel does not publicly use codenames in reference to products after their release). This is the specific meaning of Santa Rosa as per Intel. The trade press has not done a great job of consistently respecting that meaning.

Crestline is the codename of a specific Northbridge (MCH, in Intel parlance) that was released as the major component of the Intel Mobile 965 Express chipset, which in turn is a major component of the Santa Rosa platform. Intel doesn't publicize chipset codenames much on its own site, so I don't have anything directly from them indicating the release name of Crestline. List of Intel chipsets mentions it but has no cite. However, one of the results from the search of Intel.com that you linked above is a transcript of a Sean Maloney keynote in which he states: "Santa Rosa will be all the goodness of Merom [codename of Core 2 Duo for laptops] plus Crestline next-generation chip set and also Kedron which is the next generation wireless". While I'm here, "Santa Rosa" produces so many hits at apple.com because Apple has a store in Santa Rosa, CA.

In essence the true meaning of Santa Rosa is known and not disputable. It is not the name of a motherboard chipset. However, there is disagreement over whether it is acceptable to refer to the MacBook Pro and iMac as Santa Rosa products when neither Apple nor Intel has ever described them as a Centrino Pro or Santa Rosa product (Talk:MacBook Pro has some examples of Apple employees incorrectly using the Santa Rosa codename in place of the correct Merom codename for the Core 2 Duo). There is also uncertainty over whether they meet the actual qualifications (specifically the wireless chipset, and I suspect the iMac is disqualified because it is not actually a laptop). Many third parties in the press and general public have mistakenly applied the Santa Rosa codename to the Mobile 965 Express chipset or occasionally to the processor, leading them to indicate that the MacBook Pro (and more rarely, iMac) are Santa Rosa products. This includes many otherwise-reliable media outlets. Some outlets get it right (though not always with strong sourcing). — Aluvus t/c 06:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

B0D: The new iMac being Santa Rosa, that thought, is based on what the sources say. It is not original. You are ignoring what numerous sources say about the iMac in favor of something you have not found one source to say about the iMac. Removing a claim you do not like based on your opinion is really not how things are supposed to be done around here. -GnuTurbo 14:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

AlistairMcMillan: Apple does apply the term Santa Rosa to the new MacBook Pro. Since a large number of sources refer to iMac as Santa Rosa, it is not wrong for Wikipedia to do the same. I would not object to a disclaimer about the terminology, so long as reliable sources were found supporting it (sources that talk about the new iMac). -GnuTurbo 14:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

In this case Apple didn't say anything. It is one case of one Apple dev who has used that term obviously due to a lack of proper information. Apple would never officially claim the iMac is Santa Rosa or Centrino ( go check their spec sheets) because that would get them into trouble with Intel. If Apple would consider the iMac SR they would use the Centrino badge to get revenue form Intel. We all know however that the iMac never carried that badge. Of course Apple and Intel both know that since the iMac doesn't have Kedron it is simply not compliant with SR or Centrino. Is there any part of that you seriously want to dispute? --129.129.128.64 15:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Aluvus: The "true meaning" of Santa Rosa is immaterial. What the reliable published sources say matters. They say the new iMac is Santa Rosa. Your whole argument against the iMac being Santa Rosa is based on synthesizing information from two or more sources and amounts to original research not allowed on WIkipedia. Your novel interpretation of what the Al+SiO₂ iMac is (or is not) must be sourced. Your claim needs a source. And since your claim is controversial, it needs multiple sources saying the same thing. -GnuTurbo 14:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong questioned the actual meaning of Santa Rosa and Crestline, and so I clarified. Please read the entire post. My summary above is accurate and true to the facts. It contains no original research and is strongly sourced. If you actually dispute any of the facts contained in that summary, please say so. If not, then please help build consensus on how Wikipedia should address this. Repeating claims that are already on the record, and do not appear to be relevant to the post you are replying to, is not constructive. — Aluvus t/c 18:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Your comment appears to be taking a tangent that will not help to resolve this issue on Wikipedia, as I explained in my post. To reiterate, your argument as to whether the iMac (or MacBook Pro) fits the "qualifications" of Santa Rosa is original research. I am trying to be constructive by insuring you understand what is needed on Wikipedia for your information to be included here. Posting to this page implies your comment relates to editing this article on Wikiepdia. My comment follows in that context. -GnuTurbo 19:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"There is also uncertainty over whether they meet the actual qualifications" is a description of discussion that has previously occurred on this page and at Talk:MacBook Pro. No claim is made here of the validity of that uncertainty. The issue of the iMac's status as a desktop is explicitly presented as only my suspicion and not as fact. Nothing in the summary is presented as material to be included in the actual article text, only as background material, and consequently your complaints have no relevance.

The context here is a summary of the facts in which I did not advocate doing anything at all. The summary deliberately does not suggest any single course of action, because it is intended only to ensure that the basic facts are understood by all involved. It is not constructive to lecture people on policy they are already familiar with, especially when it is not relevant to what they have said. Again, if you do not dispute any of the facts as stated then you have no cause for complaint about the summary. If you dispute any of the facts as stated, please state your objections. I will not be able to reply for several days, but others will be able to read them. — Aluvus t/c

20:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yea and Apple or Intel never called the MBP or iMac "Crestline". However, who cares since we already decided it made since to refer to the products by release date, as Apple does, rather than obscure codenmaes or chipsets. There's nothing more to discuss in my opinion. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Interim Solution

Until this issue is resolved, I will be removing all refences to Crestline and/or Santa Rosa. If anyone is to add such references (or revert the article), I will remove the references and request that an admin lock this article until this issue is resolved. Butterfly0fdoom 05:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As on the MBP page, I appreciate your rational decision. It's better to refrain from publishing chipset information than further spreading misinformation.--84.73.140.109 07:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

So we agrees, then. Case closed. I don't want to be seeing any more Centrino references in any of the Mac articles or else. Butterfly0fdoom 15:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

yay! And if anyone else wants to write to the Press Contact for Mac Hardware regarding this issue for a definite answer, please do. I have written, but have not received a response. perhaps with more emails, we will get a response.--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 17:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Is "Intel iMac" a good title for the article?

With us calling the article "Intel iMac" I think there is a fair chance some people are going to be confused and think this is about iMacs produced by Intel. Perhaps it would be better to move it to "iMac (Intel-based)" or "Intel-based iMac" which is what Apple appear to use to disambiguate these models on their support pages. http://www.apple.com/support/hardware/ AlistairMcMillan 01:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

We should be trying our best to use the precise names Apple uses, instead of inventing our own. -/- Warren 03:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

iMac (Intel-based) seems good for consistency, since we are moving towards using Apple's names exclusively. -GnuTurbo 13:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. iMac (Intel-based) sounds better than Intel iMac. To some the latter could imply Intel manufactured it.--129.129.128.64 13:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I further the agreement. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur, iMac (Intel-based) sounds much better and is more consistent with using Apple's official terminolgy. Butterfly0fdoom 15:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 16:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Then, with 5 "agree"s, shall we move the article? Butterfly0fdoom 20:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup?

Why would the computer specs section be better organized in a table? All a table will do is put a line where it is already very clear one section ends and another begins.--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 18:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

If done well it increases the articles readability. It's been done quite successfully on MacBook and to some extent on MacBook Pro (15.4" section). Nja247 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah... I see what you mean. It would be better if it is done a la the MacBook article.--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 02:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)\

Problems?

"There are a number of reported problems with the 24" iMac with the 2.8Ghz processor, some of which include DoA (Dead on Arrival) Superdrives that fail to read and write CD's and DVD's and left channel speaker intermittent faults."

I moved the above statement to this page until someone can provide reliable sources for this information.

Include model info?

AlastairMcMillan thinks adding model info would make this article too cataloguish. I disagree; in fact, I added the data after coming here to find just this information. Other opinions? PRRfan (talk) 07:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleted text follows:

List by model number

With links to specs at Everymac.com:

• MA406LL/A: 1.83Ghz 17-inch (IG)
• MA199LL: 1.83Ghz 17-inch
• MA200LL: 2.0Ghz 20-inch
• MA710LL: 1.83Ghz 17-inch (IG)
• MA590LL: 2.0Ghz 17-inch

I agree with AlistairMcMillan. Model numbers have no encyclopedic value; even more so since the model numbers given here are hopelessly outdated and the numbers of the current iMac generation are not given. There are more than enough websites (including apple.com which is referenced already in the article) which give that kind of information. And quite frankly, I think adding these model numbers is basically nothing more than a shameless plug for everymac.com which I find in itself fairly abysmal.--213.80.127.142 (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Spec Table Change Proposal

I would like to propose that we change the orientation for the specifications table or change it to a specifications list like that of the PowerBook pages and the iBook page. As Apple continues to release new iMac models, we're going to see either columns get mushed or horizontal scrolling becoming necessary. Please discuss. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just start a second one :). Airplaneman ^talk 18:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There have usually been two sizes of I-Macs (17/20, 20/24, 21.5/27), only for a short time 17/20/24 coexisted. Many configuration options are available only for the small or the large size. Therefore I suggest splitting the columns:

Component	Intel Core 2 Duo						Intel Core 2 Duo, Core i5, and Core i7		Intel Core i Series
Model	Mid 2007		Early 2008		Early 2009		Late 2009		Mid 2010
Size	Small	Large	Small	Large	Small	Large	Small	Large	Small	Large
Enclosure	Aluminum and glass
Display	20", 16:10	24", 16:10	20", 16:10	24", 16:10	20", 16:10	24", 16:10	21.5", 16:9	27", 16:9	21.5", 16:9	27", 16:9
	1680 × 1050	1920 × 1200	1680 × 1050	1920 × 1200	1680 × 1050	1920 × 1200	1920 × 1080	2560 × 1440	1920 × 1080	2560 × 1440
		IPS		IPS		IPS		IPS	IPS technology and LED backlighting

Maybe it’ll become necessary to split the table in mid-2009, but that would be the case with the next update nonetheless. — Christoph Päper 11:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Greg440 has this to say in his [1]: “I'm with the IP user, if you're going to modify the entire page then make sure your information fits it. Ex: The GT 130 and 8800gs were standard not optional. Same goes for multiple hard drive spaces.” The problem is, this is not clear at all in the previous and current table (see the corresponding table samples below, “24" only” is quite ambiguous). It would be easy to state correctly in the table layout I’m proposing and had implemented. So please correct me where I’m wrong and improve the article instead of blindly reverting. — Christoph Päper 15:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this layout change you have switched to is that the information is not easier to get at because you have not allocated space towards each model. Every aluminum and unibody iMac refresh had 4 models. You have allocated only 3 columns to each refresh making information such as optional hard drive spaces and GPU's wrong(among other things). If you want to fix it and make it so every model has its own column then be my guest and do so before you revert anything. As of now, your 3 column solution is horrible and worse than the previous tables that were in use. — Greg440 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried my best to get the information out of the current layout, but often it just was not clear enough. If you know what is wrong, fix it and do not revert. It is pretty easy to adjust the colspans. The tables are utter useless if you need to know beforehand what they say to understand them.

Actually, at least for the Unibody model table, I used 4 columns per release. Especially for the current models it looks like 3 columns, because the current table did not indicate the differences between models.

The table code is better readable with {{Option}}, but you just revert everything.

It does not help, by the way, that your only contributions are reverts of my changes. — Christoph Päper 11:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I did try editing your layout before I reverted, spent about an hour trying to get four columns for each model and gave up because this new layout of yours is a pain to edit. If you want to set it up so that every aluminum and unibody iMac has 4 columns for every refresh then I will gladly do the work for the information, but otherwise it's just a nightmare to go through. — Greg440 11 August 2010

I doubled the colspans in the aluminium table, the unibody table already had 4 columns per release, although some are unused right now. — Christoph Päper 09:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Current layout

Component	Intel Core 2 Duo
Model	Early 2008	Early 2009
Display (all glossy glass-covered widescreen)
	20", 1680 × 1050
	24", 1920 × 1200 with IPS technology
Graphics	ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT with 128MB of GDDR3 SDRAM(20" only) ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO with 256MB of GDDR3 SDRAM nVidia GeForce 8800 GS with 512MB of GDDR3 SDRAM(24" only)	nVidia GeForce 9400M with 256MB shared with main memory (20" and low-end 24" only) nVidia GeForce GT 120 with 256MB of GDDR3 SDRAM (24" only) nVidia GeForce GT 130 with 512MB of GDDR3 SDRAM (24" only) Optional ATI Radeon HD 4850 with 512MB of GDDR3 SDRAM (24" only)

Small/Large Columns Proposal

Specifications of aluminium iMacs from 2007 through 2009

Component	Intel Core 2 Duo
Model	Early 2008		Early 2009
Display	glossy glass-covered widescreen 16:10
	20", 1680 × 1050	24", 1920 × 1200 IPS	20", 1680 × 1050	24", 1920 × 1200 IPS
Graphics	ATI Radeon HD 2400 XT with 128MB of GDDR3 SDRAM	ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO with 256MB of GDDR3 SDRAM	nVidia GeForce 9400M with 256MB shared memory	nVidia GeForce GT 120 with 256MB of GDDR3 SDRAM
	Optional: 2600 PRO with 256MB	Optional: 8800 GS with 512MB		Optional: GT 130 or ATI Radeon HD 4850, both with 512MB of GDDR3 SDRAM

References

Anyone know why the spec tables for anything before 2012 were deleted? I know the machines are obsolete and no longer supported, but that doesn't mean the information isn't important, and many of the machines are still being used. Can the tables be restored? Fh1 (talk) 04:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Merge iMac with this page

I updated the tech specs for the iMac that was released today and realized that this article appears to be fragmented between iMac and iMac (Intel-Based). I think it would be a good idea to merge the two and to include information on the new imac like technology specifications from late 2012. Elangsto (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

firewire

The article talks about the removal of firewire 400 but not the addition of 800. I know current imacs have 800 so when was it added? Plugwash (talk) 12:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No 2012 Core i iMac

This article doesn't mention anything about the 2012 Core i line of iMacs and the latest tech specs havent been put on either (currently featured on http://www.apple.com/imac/). It's like the page just froze in mid-2011. — Supuhstar * — 17:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Hey, I just added the new iMac. I as well noticed that the page was misleading without the new information. It should be ok now, however i have not been able to complete the info box as some information has not been formally released. --Tacita620 (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's Improve

Hey guys, I have been reading through all the iMac articles and related articles and it seems there is a lot of random information sitting about in different places. The arrangement of the aritcles is somewhat confusing and it is difficult to find a general summary without knowing the specifics i.e The G5 is different to the 'polycarbonate' Mac. I propose we merge some of the articles and maybe produce some more individual articles to arrange them better. For example each Intel Basded Imac could have its own article steming from the intel imac page. Then it wouldnt all be crammed into one. Also the 'iMac page' should excplain the differences between Imac and Intel Based, with a clear link to the Intel based iMacs article. I believbe this as when people type into wiki they most likely type 'iMac', instead of 'Intel based iMac'.--Tacita620 (talk) 12:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Better name for the "2012 iMac"

Isn't there a more descriptive name for the 2012 iMac rather than just "2012 iMac?" Like iMac (Slim Unibody Aluminum)"? Anyway I edited the names for the "2012 iMac" on the main iMac page and the Intel iMac page.

Please direct any comments or suggestions for better names than "Slim Unibody iMac" here.

Requested move 17 February 2015

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. Number 57 12:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

---

IMac (Intel-based) → Intel-based iMac – "Intel-based iMac" sounds more natural and fluid than the choppier "iMac (Intel-based)" that is currently in place. Apple has occasionally used the term "Intel-based iMac" for technical support on their website, so it is not as if we are creating this title out of thin air. WikiRedactor (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Are these actually called Inter Based Imacs of are they iMacs that are intel based. If it is the later we can`t move this since we can`t create out own names.--67.68.161.146 (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no "we"; that's just you. You are creating that title out of thin air. That's not Apple's title; it's a description. Its title is "iMac". An aesthetic opinion is irrelevant to WP:NATURAL; we don't just go copy editing titles. There are no grounds whatsoever for a rename. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 13:56, 18 February 2015 (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.

Retina 5K iMac

I split the info on the 5k iMac into a subsection because I feel there is enough additional info on the 5k models that should be added to justify it's own subsection. There needs to be some info added on the custom solution Apple came up with to drive the 5k display since the standard HDMI and DisplayPort standards at that time would work with a 5k display. --74.95.207.205 (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Split this Page?

The previous generations of iMacs each have their own pages. I think it would make sense and maintain consistency with the other iMac pages if we split this article into Core/Core 2 iMacs, Aluminum iMacs, and Unibody iMacs.

MrHudson (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Error regarding the aluminium iMac

The section about the redesign from polycarbonate to aluminium implies that it had an aluminium back from the beginning but I'm pretty sure the first aluminium iMac still had a separate, black plastic backside. --213.114.159.140 (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2016 (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:

• IMac Pro.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Minor edit to 5.1 Specifications of slim unibody iMacs from 2012 to present

The reference for the Release Date does not say that it was released in 2013 January, but instead states that new orders would be shipped in 2013 (Date of publication is December 7, 2012) but that current orders with a Dec 2012 date would be honored and fulfilled in 2012. Which explains why my receipt is dated 2012 and not 2013 but that would be original research so I am using the existing reference as the authority.

Now, if you pre-ordered your 27-inch iMac already, don’t panic. Instead, check the shipping estimate you received; if it indicates a late December ship date, Apple intends to honor that promise. The delayed shipments should affect only new orders. [My emphasis]

So my revision would be to change the Release date from January 2013 to December 2012 this would also match all of Apples references to this model as being Late 2012 and not Early 2013. If you disagree feel free to revert and discuss here. TSpot-SF (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

References

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:

• IMac Retina 5K.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Mid-2017 21.5-inch iMac is NOT discontinued as of now

I think there has been a great amount of confusion as to whether the mid-2017 21.5-inch 1080p iMac has been discontinued. I want to clarify that, unlike the 4K Retina 21.5-inch iMacs, it has not been discontinued for now. In order to actually buy it, you will need to head over to the 27-inch iMac selection page on the Apple website, and you will be able to switch over and find the lone 21.5-inch iMac (the $1099 model). You can also just use this link to access it. Even though the product is hidden, it is still being sold, contrary to popular belief. This section was created just to inform those who did not know otherwise. Smik550 (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Formatting of "Specifications of iMacs with Retina Display from 2014 to 2022"

I had opened -> http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/IMac_(Intel-based)#Specifications_of_iMacs_with_Retina_Display_from_2014_to_2022

The headers looked wrong, so I looked at TOC and found:

• 5 4th generation: Slim Unibody iMac
• 5.1 Specifications of Slim Unibody iMacs from 2012 to 2017
• 5.2 Retina revision
• 5.2.1 Specifications of iMacs with Retina Display from 2014 to 2022

Shouldn't the last line be "5.3 (blah blah blah)" ?

• No. The Retina Display is still part of the 4th generation. However, I will clean this up and maybe that will make it more clear. —GoldRingChip 15:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomenclature for generations

This is something that I know people have brought up before (DFlhb with their point about assigning "generations" to their machines), but there's certainly no official sourcing for a lot of the generation nomenclature for Apple's products. I already removed the generations note per DFihb's comments to the matter in a WT:APPLE thread. I do note, however, that The Verge gave some descriptors for the generations of the iMacs in their 25th anniversary piece, that in the absence of other sources and with concerns about Wikipedia being a source of cytogenesis, I think might be better to use here (basically uses 'white', 'aluminum frame', 'aluminum block', 'slim aluminum', and 'retina', so not drastically different than ours.) Thoughts? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

My 2c: I've never heard them called "aluminum frame"/"aluminum block". Unless you're confident with this, I suggest sticking with what we've got, so we don't harm recognizability without making the citogenesis issue any better.

Another 2c, since you seem to be working towards GA: the scope feels arbitrary (we've discussed it before). "Intel iMacs" as a grouping doesn't seem salient in sources either. Article got created for a single model, the Intel iMac upon release, like the G3/G4/G5, but more models were added here and the scope was retconned to be about processor architecture, which then spread to other Macs. My thoughts are unchanged since that January '23 comment (pro-merge), especially if there's not enough aggregate coverage of the "iMac" (vs. individual models). Having our page on "iMac" be a list feels wrong somehow (and formalizes these groupings further). Sourcing on the "iMac" as a computer, singular, should catch up eventually. DFlhb (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I haven't particularly either (certainly not more specific than "aluminum") but I also haven't seen any sources that are any less arbitrary than the Verge one (I have seen exactly zero sources making the same aluminum/unibody/slim unibody distinctions we do--at best you get aluminum and then unibody and then retina since the later is at least a feature if not necessarily a design element, but the 'slim unibody' examples I find online seem to be entirely people taking Wikipedia's naming and going from there.) Coverage does tend to come in bursts with the big design changes getting the most press and then the revisions being shorter reviews/less covered, so in that sense the groupings we have makes some level of sense, but I don't really see any other approach speaking more broadly that makes sense. Part of this is that the Intel era has just ended, part of this is that there's a dearth of good retrospective sources (especially books) that cover this era in Apple's history, but there's really no guidance out there (beyond stopping using 'generations' since they're usually never that clean-cut.) I do know that there's much, much less on the design of the Intel-and-on machines so it's not like you could make good articles if you split the various models apart and you wouldn't end up with more than a stub on each; what I've edited roughly with the Polycarbonate section (another name I really hate, since I can't find a ton covering it with that phrasing) is basically as much summary as I think you can get for most of it. So while I agree our groupings are totally random, there's not really any other options (we absolutely couldn't have a reasonable reception section for the whole of the Intel iMacs, for example.) I likewise don't see much of a format for iMac that works outside the list because there's very little sourcing covering the iMac as a broader whole (and to some degree why would they, they're a set of very different computers where only the first two had a ton of design recognition and pop cultural effects, once you've become a 'boring' slab everyone has and sees it doesn't garner as much attention.) (Alternatively, maybe the solution there is there doesn't need to be an iMac page, it could just be a part of the larger List of Mac models type thing.)

Or, to approach it another way, we can't exactly wait for the coverage to "catch up" and use that as a model going forward because the coverage is going to be shaped by whatever choices we make (or don't) now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 02:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not taking issue with "white/aluminum/slim/retina", but with article scopes as "iMac", "iMac (Intel)", "iMac (Apple silicon)". Should have opened a new section for clarity.

"Intel iMacs" has even less aggregate coverage than "iMac", so why favour the less recognizable (arbitrary) subtopic and put material here, and not at iMac? (I feel strongly that iMac deserves to be an article more than this one). If there's no §Reception at iMac, whatever, it's not like there is one here. Even The Verge, when they try to cover the iMac as a single topic, do it by discussing each major generation one by one (frankly, that may be the only way that makes sense, rather than my poorly-defined notion of somehow discussing the iMac as one singular thing). We could match that with a simple merge back to the parent article (+summary style for the G3 etc.). DFlhb (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC) edited 10:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

And feel free to replace "polycarbonate" with "white", it does feel more common - DFlhb (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I guess for now not to upset the apple cart, I'll keep working on the content in situ. I think you can do an okay job doing reception for each redesign, even if it's a bit of an arbitrary lumping. I guess we'll see what we have by the end and can look at what makes sense in grouping with the theoretical "full" content. (One minor consideration is you're going to have to make arbitrary breaks for the tech specs since they're already kind of usability nightmares even before you start stacking a decade of models together. Stripping it down to just the stuff you can cite directly to tech specs or solid secondary sources helps a little, but that's still an overarching problem that would need to be addressed too.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

That's fine (though again, I'm not claiming the redesign groupings are arbitrarily, it's a fine objective criteria; and they don't all need material about "reception" either, if there's nothing much to say). I don't care about specs tables. If you keep them, maybe putting them on the bottom makes most sense? Can't imagine they play well on mobile, though I haven't tried. DFlhb (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)