Wikipedia

Talk:Apple Inc./Archive 1

< Talk:Apple Inc.
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Wackymacs in topic Not as good as it used to be
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

(Untitled Discussions)

I don't think the iPod can play MP3's (for now) it uses a different file format.

Yes it can. Graham 22:17, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What about the boycott of Apple due to their suit of microsoft by the FSF?

The Free Software Foundation participated in a boycott of Apple (and Lotus and Xerox) sponsored by the League for Programming Freedom. In 1995 (!), LPF dropped this tactic of boycotting look and feel plaintiffs. Since then FSF has considered Apple operating systems to be like any other (non-free) operating system. Markonen 13:54, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm not 100% on this, but in regards to the music store, don't the people just own a non-time-expiring license to use the music for personal use? I believe there is a difference.

On your music store comment, you're correct. I've clarified this. David Fell 12:13, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Should "Software made by Apple" be renamed to something like "Apple Branded software" or something as there are several products they now "own" but do not actively make. e.g. Logic which is still made by e-Magic, even though they were bought out by Apple. You could say that the Mac OS is made in part by Microsoft, due to the fact that Microsoft own a large chunk of Apple Computer. Just my thoughts... Neolux 07:19, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

No. Apple has one of the biggest software development groups in the world, and even if they choose to extend their numbers by acquisitions rather than hiring, the software they sell can very reasonably be called their own. In fact, of all the software companies Apple has acquired in the recent years, Emagic is unique in that it was not incorporated into Apple proper. This was probably due to the company being based in Germany. So you could say that Logic is an exception to the rule, and indeed it is incorrectly referred to as Apple Logic on the page.
For what its worth, Microsoft does not own Apple shares and it never owned a significant chunk. Microsoft's $100M investment of non-voting stock in mid-90ies was an minuscule portion of Apple's market cap, which now is up to $7.5B. Markonen 09:11, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Deleted "Early machines included a module which used marzipan as the main insulating material on the CPU resistors. The first users of the machines would often make the lab smell of fragrant almonds but the performance boost more than made up for the odour." Ha ha. GRAHAMUK 06:04, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Personally, I feel this page is getting scrappy - it reads like it was written by committee (which of course, it was). The facts are mostly straight, but it jumps around and isn't a coherent story or style. There is also a lot of extraneous and unnecessary detail - I've removed one or two glaring bits (e.g. the fact that IBM is known as Big Blue doesn't need to be mentioned here, it's not relevant to Apple, and can go on the IBM page). I suppose this is the problem with WP in general - everyone has their own favourite factoid they like to contribute but after a while it becomes a bit crufty. I might attempt a rewrite at some point if nobody minds and I get the time GRAHAMUK 06:18, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've added a bit more to the intro, and removed 'Woz'. -- Tarquin 10:38, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Weren't the two Steves somehow connected to the hit Atari arcade game, Breakout? And didn't Jobs originally approach Atari (who he was working for at the time) for funding to start Apple? I'd add these facts myself, but I am unsure of the details. Dan Mazurowski 01:48 CDT, 17-Aug-2003

If I'm not mistaken, Jobs wrote Breakout. But I'm not sure, so I won't add it. David Fell 12:13, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)
Woz is the one who wrote Breakout, Jobs took the credit and most of the cash for it. (Source is the book "Infinite Loop") SonicAD 01:52, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

The Apple Computer entry, the Steve Jobs entry, and the Steve Wozniak entry have conflicting views on the selling the Apple I.

  • Apple Computer entry has as follows: "...order 50 of the machines and pay $500 each on delivery."
  • Steve Jobs entry has only "...at a price of $666.66."
  • Wozniak entry has the following. "Apple I was priced at $666. Jobs and Wozniak sold their first 25 computers to a local dealer."

so which is correct, and what should be done?

-anon

I believe that the Apple I was introduced at the Homebrew computer club and Byteshop order 50 at $500 each. The first Apple I computer as shipped and marketed to the masses was listed at $666 on official price lists. So I guess it comes down to what is determined as the first "sale". Is it the private sale at the club, or the RRP on an Apple Pricelist? Neolux 14:08, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The article has a big problem: there's a large chronological gap between "The Macintosh" and "Recent Years". I hardly think the paragraph at the beginning of "Recent Years" that attempts to fill in the years between '84 and '97 is representative of the company's activities in those 14 years:

A laptop version of the Macintosh, the PowerBook, was introduced in the early 1990s. Products from Apple also include operating systems such as ProDOS, Mac OS and A/UX, networking products such as AppleTalk and multimedia program QuickTime. Discontinued products include the Apple Power Mac G4 Cube and the Apple Newton handheld computer.

It's pretty pitiful, really. The iTMS gets two whole paragraphs, yet the Power Mac is not mentioned once! Would someone please fill in that huge gaping hole?

Agreed, here are some things to focus on. I'll try to add more too: Gil Ameilio, Power Computing clone agreement, Michael Spindler, etc. Fuzheado 14:32, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I have added some Power Mac stuff. I also removed the discontinued products line for this reason-- The G4 cube was really just a differently designed Power Mac, and there are plenty of discontinued computers over the years. And the Newton is discussed later in the article. I added some info there, too. David Fell 12:13, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

So this on a slashdot post and thought it was hilarious:

Apple Computer: (n) A primary source of ideas for Microsoft's research & development groups. See also: Muse

Removed "*[http://www.mammals.org/ mammals.org is also owned by Apple]" from external links. It's interesting but fairly pointless. See also www.iphone.org and www.macmate.com (domains that don't seem to serve any purpose)

How do I contest the NEUTRALITY of the Apple Computer entry in Wikipedia? I find it to be non-neutral in that it subtly advocates this niche platform

"The Macintosh was and continues to be a success for Apple, but not as big a success as it could have been." -- is an example of a non-neutral opinion. A neutral opinion is "Sales of Apple computers were xxx this last quarter, comprising 2.9% of the total PC marketplace."

"Although the first version of Windows was technologically inferior to the Mac, " is a NON-NEUTRAL opinion. You could say "A survey of dentists show that they believe the orginal Mac-OS to be superior to Windows", but just squirting out this false fact with no references shows evidence of bias.

"Although the first version of the Trabant was technologically inferior to the Mercedes SLK..." Is this a contentious opinion? Not really - while it is still an opinion, it is one held by the vast majority who care about it. Opinions cannot be eliminated from WP, since this is a work by humans about human endeavours and interests. We can't step outside of that box, so until the editing of WP is taken over by aliens, total NPOV will be impossible. I believe the Mac/early Windows comparison is of this type - no sane person who has given any thought to this would conclude the reverse.Graham 00:01, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Since the anonymous user who made these complaints has since not made any attempts to rectify the article, I assume that he no longer sees a problem in the article. I will remove the notice that questions neutrality. If someone feels differently, simply put it back and discuss it here. — David Remahl 17:02, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

maybe you guys could do a little fact checking and filling out by checking out linzmayer's apple confidential 2.0. i have a copy of the book and i'd be willing to do it, but it would take forever and i suck at consistent editing :p Applegoddess 04:53, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

POV comment removed

The text added was - "Wozniak raised money to start his new comnpany by selling devices used to steal services from the telphone company." If that is a fact it needs to be stated factually and neutrally. - Taxman 15:03, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

Of course it's a fact. Why do you want to hide the truth from the public? Are you on Apple's payroll?

I think the dispute is over the wording, in particular the word "steal". There are many who would say that phreaking wasn't stealing; others would disagree. So either way it's POV... I don't think anyone is saying that Wozniak didn't build the devices, but his motivation or use to which they were put needs rewording to avoid an unnecessary argument.Graham 06:03, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
On further consideration, I removed the sentence altogether. It has nothing to do with Apple Computer, which is what this article is about. It can be mentioned on Steve Wozniak's page. I don't dispute the facts, but the wording and the way it aggressively links to an external site make it POV. It also has a vibe about it that seems to simply be wanting to say something bad for the sake of it. To me it's no more relevant than if I had received a caution for criminal damage at age 13 and then at age 20 I founded Megalocorp, inc. My minor criminal record would have absolutely no material bearing on that company whatsoever.Graham 01:38, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"This rivalry [Cocoa vs Carbon] is seen as counterproductive and unnecessary." is a NON-NEUTRAL statement! Who sees it as unnecessary? As a loyal Apple Fan, I think it's critical that the correct side wins. The rivalry *may* be necessary, it may not be. A Neutral Statement would be "Joe Blow, director of technology for Apple Computer sees this rivalry as counterproductive and unnecessary, but Mary Shmoe feels it's a healthy dialog." If you can't find SOURCES or EXAMPLES, DROP IT! WHO sees it

I'm an Apple Mac developer, and I for one see it as counterproductive and unnecessary. I'm also fairly loyal to Apple (i.e. I simply don't do Windows), though being a Mac developer for nearly 20 years I've been fucked over by the company more than a few times. It dismays me that there are still factions within Apple that can't pull together in the same direction, and that hurts all of us. Unfortunately simply denying it doesn't make it untrue, or go away. Better that Apple fans make their displeasure about the situation known so that it gets fixed. My take is that the two technologies are not in competition, they are serving different needs. So making sure "the correct side wins" is utter bollocks - they are both on the same side, to wit, making sure the Mac platform remains viable. Neither side will win if all the company's energy is spent on one-upmanship. The fact is that Cocoa and Carbon are complementary technologies, but it's also a fact that Mac OS X has two totally separate bits of code that implement the look of widgets - one for Carbon and one for Cocoa. This is inefficient, and leads to small differences in appearance that the user will notice, and it is odd. It's unnecessary because one piece of code that generates the look of widgets is all that's needed, and could be shared/leveraged by both technologies. That's just one example. If you want to get a better look at what goes on within Apple, try joinin gon of the developer mailing lists. You'll soon have a list as long as your arm of people, who matter, that also think it's "counterproductive and unnecessary". Naturally there is no need to name names, because in fact the feeling is rather general. I believe the statement from this perspective is actually quite neutral. It's a fair criticism of Apple, and as an Apple loyalist, I truly hope somethign is done about it. Graham 07:17, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I am also a Mac developer, and I don't see significant rivalry between Carbon and Cocoa anymore. New API's are either non-Carbonish C (SearchKit), or Cocoaish Objective-C (QTKit), or both (AddressBook). Carbon development is stalling. I agree that the rivalry was counterproductive, but I don't see how it is now. The fact that there are two different pieces of code is a necessary evil if Apple wants to provide both backwards compatibility and a modern OO API. Apparently not everyone agrees that the statement is factual and NPOV, so I also feel that it must be rephrased. — David Remahl 09:30, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC) Edit: After a second reading, I see that I mostly agree with Graham. However, the statement that there is internal rivalry between NeXTies and fundamentalist Apple people needs to be supported. (And just hand-waving to the mailing lists isn't sufficient). David Remahl 09:32, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I just reverted this change: "This rivalry is seen as counterproductive and unnecessary by some Apple fundamentalists. However, deveoplers with Unix or NeXT background see the complete adoption of Cocoa as a requirement for Apple's survival." If this was an attempt to eliminate POV, it achieved just the opposite. "Fundamentalist" is a very loaded word. I am not an Apple fundamentalist (whatever that is), but I do believe that the rivalry is counterproductive. Furthermore, the "complete adoption" of Cocoa is unlikely to be necessary for the platform's survival, and I know many NeXT/Unix developers who don't subscribe to that view either. In fact since most of the reason for buying a Mac have largely to do with key apps such as Photoshop, Illustrator, etc etc, which are all Carbon apps, "complete adoption" of Cocoa is likely to prove suicidal. I mean, duh. In fact this is exactly the sort of rivalry I am talking about -I hadn't realised it had spilt out into the wider world of mindless zealotry! Get this straight: Carbon and Cocoa are COMPLEMENTARY technologies, BOTH necessary for the platform's survival. Cocoa is very cool, but not very widely supported "out there". Carbon is not as cool by a long shot, but it's what 90% of all Mac applications that matter are currently written in. It's not a question of one winning out over the other, it's a question of Apple doing what is right to keep OS X viable. As long as this sort of perception and rivalry exists WITHIN Apple (I don't care about outside) then there is energy being wasted on stuff that is not helping to achieve this end. Incidentally it's interesting that the Windows world is starting to go through a similar agony, with the Win32 APIs vs .NET, so it's part of a larger trend. Graham 01:10, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re-appearing npov notice

I removed the npov notice last week (see comment above), but it was put back by an anonymous user with few other contributions on his list without any justification. Please describe why you think the article is POVy, if you want to put the notice on the page. — David Remahl 11:47, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Received wisdom

Apple have been criticised for their vertically integrated business model, which runs against the grain of much of the 'received wisdom' of economists, particularly for the computer industry.

Somebody changed the above so that the word 'received' was removed, presumably because they feel that to say this is POV. The trouble is that it renders the sense of the sentence completely different. By received wisdom I mean the bulk of text books and other education that students of economics receive. It's not POV to say that, that's how economists learn their stuff! These text books almost invariably suggest that vertical integration is a bad model for the computer industry. Yet, Apple turn a profit. So the received wisdom isn't always infallible, which is my point. If the word 'received' is removed, this suggests that economists are incontrovertably wise, without question. THAT is seriously POV, and demonstrably false.Graham 23:31, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Too many links

We have way too many external links in this article. We could throw out one third and move one third to other articles. Here they are, with my suggestions: ✏ Sverdrup 17:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  1. These should stay --S

News

  1. Many of these should be moved to articles on Mac OS, Mac OS X, Apple Macintosh --S

Rumors

Rumor parodies

People

  1. Moved to the relevant articles -- S

History

Support and service

  1. Moved to Mac OS /x articles, those not fitting there remove --S

Mac sales, deals, and reviews

  1. These two should go --S

Other

  1. This one should move to news --S

What do you think? ✏ Sverdrup 17:23, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'd cut all of them but apple.com and maybe an unofficial "history" site or two like apple-history.com—Wikipedia is not a link repository. Someone coming here probably wants basic information about Apple Computer, the company; if they want to know about OS X hints or developer information, they can consult Yahoo! or Google. —tregoweth 07:15, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Yup, I agree. Let's lose the lot, though if a non-apple history link remains I'd go for folklore.org. Graham 01:58, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

During the visit at PARC, they were also shown networking. Doesn't that mean that Apple's networking is a result of the PARC researchers?

I think some mention of the 1984 ad might be in order.

That's done--Chealer 23:27, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

Not as good as it used to be

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article seems to have deteriorated within the past few months. It used to have a lot of context, and was pretty good. Currently, the article mostly comprises of lists, and not much context/pictures. It also deserves a better lead, or at least two lengthly paragraphs. A summarized version of the History of Apple Computer article should be included in the History section. This article should be up to FA standard, but unfortunately it's not, let's change that. There are much better company articles on Wikipedia, for example see Microsoft or IBM as typical examples. Putting this article up for peer review might help, or maybe the Article Improvement Drive to get it ready for the Featured Article status that it deserves! — Wackymacs 18:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Please update article

The article says that: " CEO of Apple Computer also stated during his keynote address at the World Wide Developers Conference 2005, that the use of Mac OS X will continue well into the next two decades." I was not able to remember that sentence, to I reviewed the video. What Steve Jobs actually said was: "[OS X] has set Apple up for the next 20 years" (ca. 19:50), and I don't think the article reflects this quote accurately

A Simply Apple Question

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I have never used an Apple before. One thing that has always confused me is Apple's mouse. A typical mouse has one button to Select items and the other button to access the Options. Well how in the world do I "right-click" if Apple's mouse only has one button? Do Apple operating systems even have a "right-click" options menu? I would appreciate any help. --Secret Agent Man 01:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The "options" are listed in the pull-down menus at the top of the screen. As a Mac user, I would say that asking "How do I right click on a Mac?" is analagous to asking "How do I shift gears on a car with an automatic transmission?" -Exia 03:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Thats easy! Chuck that dang one button mouse for a proper one! Or if your short on cash [and who isn't at one point], hold the cntl or control key while clicking. One thing should be known though about the Mac OS at face value.... the contextual menu is not VITAL for the interface like it is in other operating systems. But trust me on getting a new mouse. Hope that helps! peace folks! CoolFox 02:13, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
Partly to drive my son (well, stepson, but he's more like me than his biological father) crazier, I use a MicroSoft mouse on my Mac G4 Powerbook. Oh, and no driver needed. Scroll wheel works too. No Plug-and-pr play nonsense. --WCFrancis 02:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Ethnic firing

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"Following September 11, 2001, Apple Computer began firing and facilitating the racially motivated deportation of dozens of segregated ethnic minorities, including individuals who had developed Mac OS X. Shortly thereafter, several Mac OS X-related projects were handed over to unqualified employees with no relevant Computer Science, or otherwise technical qualifications. Mac OS X has since changed very little, while tens of thousands of new bugs have been reported on it. OS X remains a historical remnant of Apple Computer's purchase of NeXT, being replaced by iPod as Apple's new hope for survival."

Is there a source on this? The last sentance in particular is factually inaccurate, there ahve been Substantial OS X changes (core video/audio, Quartz Extreme, etc) since release..

E1ven 03:03, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Nice try, so you remove a valid section of the Article because you take it personally when someone suggests something Negative about Apple, and then you replace it with a Homesexual Employees at Apple section and also use this as an opportunity to advertise Apple's marketing labels. Your "substantial" OSX Changes are just new Trademark and marketing labels that Apple uses on old existing products to make them look new.- Rostam Payamehr 11:00, Oct 25, 2005
First of all, that was over 10 months ago. Second of all, it's not a valid section if it's comprised of unfounded and unsubstantiated claims of racial discrimination. If you have a source, feel free to reference it and write a factual section. Bbatsell 18:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

iTMS restrictions

The following part of a paragraph is a bit POV, I believe. It is also factually wrong in a way, since customers only own a copy, and they aren't even allowed to do what they feel like with the copy without violating the EULA:

Also unlike other services, users actually own the music they purchase, and can burn the songs onto a CD, share and play the songs on up to 5 computers, and of course download songs onto an iPod, all with very few restrictions.

David Remahl 01:41, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, so be bold! Go edit it to make it correct. the iTMS license allows greater freadom with the music, but as you noted, the purchaser cannot do just anything they like. You could even say "it is much more like actually owning the music, only restrictions being ..." - Taxman 21:56, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)
I've made corrections. David Fell 12:13, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

past CEOs

Could add a section of past CEOs to the Apple as a Corporation section - since there are just 6, to me it makes sense to include their names instead of having a special page just for that. What do you think? Spangineer 18:00, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

It looks like he did it--Chealer 23:27, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

Argument moved from user talk:Chan-Ho Suh

This has been moved here from user's talk page where it was inappropriate. The gist is that a revertion of [anon user]'s post took place. I agreed with the reversion, but the anon poster did not, not unnaturally.


about your edit from the apple article

Well I was surprised to see what I wrote was completely removed because someone thought it was POV. What should I do? Put it back in because I think what YOU did was because of your POV? Also I was surprised to see that you didnt find anything worth salvaging.

What I wrote was true: Apple uses top quality hardware, and used to use the best standards (like SCSI). But you seem to think that's not something to mention. I also noted that Apple's system stability was due to the quality of the hardware and Apple's quality assurance. You slashed that out too.

And especially you deleted the part about apple's misleading marketing campaigns, which are true. http://msnbc-cnet.com.com/2100-1042_3-5180251.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/technology/3797261.stm And the exaggerations of the thruth (which are already pointed in the article earlier, but RDF'd already). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_distortion_field

And about the claims of optimized drivers, many sites discuss this, among others: http://spl.haxial.net/apple-powermac-G5/

I hope you will reconsider and show the community that you are not a fascist apple zealot.

[post unsigned]

Since I started this whole thing (in a manner of speaking), here's my two cents on this. You raised several interesting issues in your edit. But you had very little factual content surrounded with a lot of opinion. And even the factual content was phrased in either a POV manner or appeared irrelevant to the article.
As for Apple's "system stability", that is indeed a controversial issue. No doubt you are right, being above me and Graham and every other "smartass".
"I'm really tired to answer to every single smartass who thinks he's better than everyone else and actually it's just talking shit."
Whatever. But if you want to participate on Wikipedia, it is really necessary to consider the possiblity, remote as it may seem, that you may have let in a biased perspective into your edit. From my viewpoint, I've seen this "system stability" argued over and over again, and regardless of my own conclusions, I realize it's not as simple as you want to make it. Therefore, whether I agree with your basic sentiment is irrelevant. What is relevant is that we maintain Wikipedia's NPOV policy as best as we can.
I can't even see how you can bring up the marketing thing with a straight face. Your edit contains many statements like, "Because of the reasons explained above, Apple hardware and software is usually "better" than PC, but also more expensive. " Now, to give you credit, you do put quotes around the word 'better', but that shows how ambiguous it all is. Then you go criticize Apple by saying, "Their ads often try to be friendly by using simple words like "best", "fastest", "friendlier" but upon closer examination, these words have no context." Well, ok, that's marketing for you. But then the same applies to your edit that I reverted!
Graham is correct that my intent in my revert was to avoid "rehash[ing] the very tired boring old arguments about which is "better"" and keeping Wikipedia encyclopedic in nature. Perhaps some of your points can be reformed into something appropriate, but frankly, I don't see how to do it. --C S 07:00, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Chan-Ho Suh's edit 100%. As a Mac user I privately agree with some of what you wrote, but the problem is that what you wrote and how you wrote it has no place in an encyclopedia, which is trying only to concern itself with actual facts, not opinions. In addition the credibility of work provided under an anonymous IP address in my view has far less weight than someone who has taken the trouble to register, but that's just my opinion. Also, the article in question is about Apple, the company, not Macintosh, the computer - but that should not be taken to mean that your entry would be any more welcome there in its current form. here's what is wrong:
"Until recent years, before the GNU/Linux Operating System became sort of mainstream, personal computer users were divided in PC users and Apple users. Due to the incompatibilities of both systems, people who adopted one type of computer was usually bound to the standards of that particular platform, like document formats and hardware expansions."

This ignores the history of the personal computer, where there were many competing systems and standards long before it gelled into the 2 camps of today. In addition, many would argue that PCs and Macs were more compatible than this would suggest - many file formats, disks, etc were interchangeable even in the early days.

"Apple computers used to be better, and more expensive, than PCs because of the kind of hardware used."

Pure opinion. Comparisons such as "better" have no place in an encyclopedia.

"SCSI Is faster, more efficient, more reliable and more expensive than IDE"

If this is a fact, it would be very hard to prove (especially the reliability claim). Since most disk mechanisms are mechanically identical whether IDE or SCSI, and reliability is generally a mechanical issue, I doubt this claim is even true. In addition, the level of technical detail you go into here and in other places is not warranted in a general article about Appel Computer (the company).

"Apple not only used the best standards (SCSI, RS-422, and lots of others), "

Again, using the term "best" is pure POV. RS-422 is better than what? In what way? Can you quantify it?

"... also used the best quality available"

How do you know this is a fact? Do you have access to Apple's inventory and purchasing records? Also, again, how would you quantify it?

"But if Apple decided to use standars analog at what they used in the 80's, their computers would be faster --and again more expensives than PCs."

Apart from being speculation and opinion, this sentence is not grammatical.

"Hardware for PC is usually compatible with Apple products, like PCI expansion cards, memory, hard drives and such, so one can upgrade an Apple computer with "generic", less expensive hardware. But usually buying Apple "brand name" hardware guarantees a tested product, with extended warranty periods and such."

Possibly true, but not interesting in the context of an encyclopedia article.

"Another issue with PCs was, for a long time, system stability....[]"

This was also an issue with Macs and most other computer systems before quite recently. However the main problem with this para (I've omitted the rest of it for brevity) is that it comes across as a piece of typical propaganda - or more crudely Mac fanboyism. As such it has no place in an encyclopedia.

"[]... buggy drivers on the best hardware are worst than good drivers on bad hardware".

POV.

"The problem is worse because manufacturers try to get their products on the market as soon as possible and often deliver it with untested drivers which makes the computer freeze, or at least, not to behave as expected"

Can you prove this with evidence? Do you have access to manufacturers' internal release policy documents? Or are you simply spouting rubbish based on your own prejudices? The rest of that para (omitted) is just rambling opinion.

"Because of the reasons explained above, Apple hardware and software is usually "better" than PC, but also more expensive"

"better" is a purely subjective notion, and hence POV. If it's a fact, it must be quantifiable. Wikipedia is not a place for the deconstruction of advertisements and marketing campaigns. You can state the facts, you cannot offer your own interpretation, etc. You can say "Apple's marketing campaign for the G5, claiming it was "the world's fastest personal computer" was criticised by the UK's Advertising Standards Authority as "misleading". Those are the facts, neutrally reported, and they are reported in this manner elsewhere within WP.

"All of this leads to some kind of seggregation between PC and Apple Mac users, which claim each of their systems are better or worse. But usually PC users are not aware of even the existence of the Apple system. On the other hand, more Apple users are more conscious about their system and promote some kind of advocacy for their systems. "PC fans" and "Apple fans" usually don't get along and get involved in endless (some would say, pointless) discussions between themselves. Sadly, Apple (the corporation) just deepens this breach with their marketing campaigns, which some PC users consider 'offensive', mainly because of the lies (or just partly untrue statements), which makes "PCs look bad"."

Well, you said it. Again, the wording of this is just not encyclopedic. There could be the basis here for an article such as "PC vs. Mac fanboyism", but to be honest it's all been covered elsewhere at great length. Try Operating system advocacy, Comparison of operating systems, and so on - all of these stick to the facts.

The main issue here is not whether or not I agree with what you're saying - in large part I do. The issue is whether your opinions count as a worthwhile contribution to an encyclopedia. We are concerned only with the facts. Reported facts can include verifyable quotations of others' opinions - like the ASA's above, but they should not be opinions in and of themselves. When you've understood the difference, your points might find a home. However, there are already many many articles on WP about PCs and Macs with probably all of this ground already covered.Graham 02:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry if my wording doesn't meet an encyclopedic level (whatever that level must be), as I'm not a native english speaker so my words may not be ellegant but I find them to be understandable enough.

"Apple computers used to be better, and more expensive, than PCs because of the kind of hardware used."
Pure opinion. Comparisons such as "better" have no place in an encyclopedia.

I meant, generic low-grade PCs. What's wrong with "better"? That's YOUR opinion.

"SCSI Is faster, more efficient, more reliable and more expensive than IDE"
If this is a fact, it would be very hard to prove (especially the reliability claim). Since most disk mechanisms are mechanically identical whether IDE or SCSI, and reliability is generally a mechanical issue, I doubt this claim is even true. In addition, the level of technical detail you go into here and in other places is not warranted in a general article about Appel Computer (the company).

I take it for granted that you don't know ANYTHING about high-end hardware. For example, and I'm not going to spend my time googling it for you, SCSI drives are NOT "mechanically identical" to IDE drives. IDE drives are designed for quiet, self-cooling operation. In contrast, SCSI drives are designed without noise levels in mind, and most need extra cooling, because they are designed for high performance and high reliability. And about reliability, for some reason SCSI drives have a MTBF (mean time between failures) of 1.000.000 - 1.500.000 hours, while IDE drives have MTBFs of about 150.000 hours. SCSI drives are also prepared for a higher duty cycle (40 - 50%_ than IDEs (20%). How do you measure all that? Get some drives, put them on an array and let them chunk away for a few days. You'll find more dead IDE drives (10 times more, in average).

"Another issue with PCs was, for a long time, system stability....[]"
This was also an issue with Macs and most other computer systems before quite recently. However the main problem with this para (I've omitted the rest of it for brevity) is that it comes across as a piece of typical propaganda - or more crudely Mac fanboyism. As such it has no place in an encyclopedia.

I'm not a Mac fanboy. I don't even own one!

"Apple not only used the best standards (SCSI, RS-422, and lots of others), "
Again, using the term "best" is pure POV. RS-422 is better than what? In what way? Can you quantify it?

RS-422 (Apple standard serial port) is better than RS-232 (PC standard serial port). It's better in the sense of speed (10Mbits/sec vs. 115200bps) and cable length (15m vs 1200m). But you didn't know that, did you?

I was actually going to answer to every single of your points but really, it's a waste of time. I don't care anymore, do whatever you want with the article. I'm really tired to answer to every single smartass who thinks he's better than everyone else and actually it's just talking shit. As far as I know my points are as valid as yours. Wait. They are more valid, because mine are not based 100% in opinions. Most of my points are verifiable while yours are just opinions. Here's an article for you to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standards As in "I THINK AN ARTICLE BASED ON WHAT I THINK ARE JUST OPINIONS DOESN'T BELONG IN AN ENCYCLOPEDIA"

[post unsigned]

Well, whatever. I'm an electronics engineer and professional software developer actually, so I do know a lot of what I'm talking about. However, as you've decided to take offence rather than just enter into a sensible debate, the matter is closed. You might have had one or two valid points that could have been defended, but instead you decided to throw a tantrum, which means that your article now has exactly zero chance of going anywhere. I didn't realise you were not an English native speaker - that does explain a lot. For example, the word "better" does not mean "faster", though faster might imply better in some contexts. If you want your writing to be taken seriously, you have to understand these differences. This is not a personal attack, but that's how it is. By the way, if you actually bother to read what I wrote, you'll see that I have not put forward my opinions, which I have kept to myself. Instead, I have pointed out the deficiencies in your article based on the standards we as a community have set for ourselves. If you are unable to take that as constructive criticism then you won't last five seconds here, since everyone's work (mine included) is subjected to thousands of corrections every day. If you can't take the heat....
Incidentally, just to take up one point you have quite wrong. I have two hard drives in front of me. One is a Seagate 320MB SCSI internal, the other a Seagate 700MB IDE internal. (Yes, they are old). Removing the PCBs from both drives, I can see at a glance they are mechanically identical. These drives were at one time fitted to Macs (different models). The story may be different in very high end rack-mounted raid systems and the like these days, but for the average drive fitted to an average desktop computer, MTBF rates are about the same since the only difference is the control electronics, not the mechanics of the drive. As far as I am aware, Apple never fitted anything other than these average-type SCSI drives to their machines, and Apple haven't used SCSI disks since about 1998. But if you're comparing a modern pro RAID type SCSI disk to the average IDE disk, then your figures may be correct (I haven't bothered to check), but they have nothing to do with desktop PCs or Macs that ever actually existed.
Finally, what tires me is the continual attempts by people (whatever platform they favour) to rehash the very tired boring old arguments about which is "better" on these pages. This is an encyclopedia. If you want to engage in these arguments, there are thousands of forums all over the web where you can do so, and I'm sure you'll find plenty of willing idiots ready to debate it with you. But WP is not a forum for platform advocacy, which is really what the reasons for revertion of your edit amounts to. Graham 05:31, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apple_Inc./Archive_1&oldid=966893782"