Talk:MacBook Air

References

Don't forget to add references to all the specs. I'd wait until Apple updates their website to get them straight from them. 129.120.22.140 (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I added the tech spec's reference Wedtm (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you guys are fast. I came here to create the page but it'd already been created. lol Entbark (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct title

Due to technical limitations, the correct title should be MacBook <thintext>Air</thintext> ;) -- MacAddct  1984 ^{(talk &#149; contribs)} 18:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Photographs

Picutres are up on the apple website. Someone who knows more than I do should add them to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenchie16 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't: WP:NFCC. ed g2s • talk 19:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Those pictures are owned by Apple and not free to distribute. We really need to wait until someone takes a photo of the product themselves. -- MacAddct  1984 ^{(talk &#149; contribs)} 19:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Would the ones available here be suitable? http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/15/apple-macbook-air-first-hands-on/ tktktk (talk) 19:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, fraid not. It needs to be a photo released into the public domain (so the easiest way is by someone who's already on Wikipedia). For examples, see the photos on the iPhone article. — alex.muller (talk • edits) 19:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Colors?

I removed the sentence about the five colors that the Air comes in...was this confirmed? [themadness] (talk)

Its someone bullshitting. Saw it in an IRC channel. jrabbit05 (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There will not be colors as of this writing. Figured I'd make that more clear. Wedtm (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Highly doubtable, considering those were the colours used for the iMac SL and the iBook. --Jrothwell ^{(? | !)} 19:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization of page: Feedback

I have reorganized some sections of the page to make it look tidier. Please give me some feedback. Thanks! Arbiteroftruth (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Advert tag

Nja247 has put an advert tag on the article.[1] I think that's not necessary. Even though most of the facts here come from Apple marketing materials, the article is a straightforward recitation of what's known about the computer. Thoughts? PRRfan (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

At that point a lot of things were not properly cited as required in an encyclopedia. It still needs work in my opinion, but looks less like an advert than it did. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the advert tag is not necessary. Kushal^t 23:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

this article does read like an ad, and without the hype, it easily violates WP:NOT. Bytebear (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Pedion comparison

I think it's relevant to cite news reports providing context to Apple's claim of thinnest-notebook-ever, which is a large part of its notability. I propose adding this: "A thinner notebook was the 1998 Mitsubishi Pedion, which was 0.7244 inches thick.[2]". PRRfan (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention it's tremendous price! Nja247 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Toshiba Portege R200 is thinner than the Air too. And take a look at the Sharp Actius MM20 - only slightly thicker but with a removable battery, ability to swap hard drive, built-in ports and PC card. It's all about those pinstripes..... 86.17.211.191 (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I read an article (don't know where) that commented that the thinness comes with a price. No CD/DVD player. Interesting since Mac was one of the first to drop Floppy drives. Bytebear (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the Sony X505 is also thinner. I think the thinnest notebook claim should really be removed or qualified as it is blatantly not true. At the moment although it says "touted by Apple" this could still be misconstrued as factual. 58.167.241.188 (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem already solved. The system works :) 58.167.241.188 (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's relevant, but does it really have to be in the lead?--HereToHelp 02http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Main Page:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The thinness of the Air seems to be it's defining feature but as long as the lead qualifies it as being "the thinnest Macintosh notebook ever" I think the Pedion reference could be moved elsewhere. 58.167.241.188 (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Where does Apple claim that this is the thinnest notebook *ever*? The press information on their web site simply asserts that it is the thinnest notebook, obvious implication being that it's the thinnest currently shipping current-generation notebook. Comparing with a (failed) 10-year model is an interesting bit of trivia, but hardly merits highlighting in the lead. And the lead shouldn't say that Apple asserts this is the thinnest *ever* unless somebody can ref where they say that. --Psm (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't be bothered finding a source but I am pretty sure it was called "the world's thinnest notebook" in the keynote speech. I suppose you could interpret that in different ways, personally I would interpret the claim as meaning "thinnest notebook in the world" which it isn't. Just because something isn't currently in production doesn't exclude it from being part of the world. The claim shoud either be omitted or qualified as the thinnest notebook currently in production or thinnest mac notebook. Also does anyone know what ever happened to this: http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/notebook-supermodel/intel-unveils-metro-worlds-thinnest-laptop-almost-skinny-as-a-razr-263359.php

58.167.241.188 (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say that there are two factors that should allow it the title "world's thinnest notebook", firstly it is the only computer of the two which is shipping currently and until a few seconds ago there wasn't even an article on the Pedion. Secondly, and this is the real reason, the MacBook Air at it's thinnest point is about half an inch thinner than the Pedion, and the small portion that is thicker is only thicker by about 0.04 inches, as CNET said:

"The Pedion measured 18.4 millimeters thick, which comes out to 0.7244 inch thick. Although the Air gets to 0.16 inch at the thinnest point, the Air is 0.76 inch thick at the beefiest portion, making it minutely thicker."

I know that in the UK at least if Apple were to make these claims wrongly then they could be fined and have the ad banned in the country, some people attempted this with some of the 'Get a Mac' ads but after about 6 months of 'research' on the ASA's part Apples claims were found to be true. I think they have probably researched the topic a fair bit and will have the above two reasons to flaunt. 86.16.139.140 (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed about the bloggy CNET article not commenting on the fact the MacBook Air is thinner in some respects. They only really compare the thickest point of the MacBook Air to the thickest point of the Pedion, ignoring that most of the MacBook Air is much thinner. In addition, I cannot find information that says the Pedion was ever sold outside of Japan. So the world claim, since Apple is marketing to the world, may mean something here, besides just the present. Kaomso (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. What is the point of a product company asserting "thinnest notebook every made in the history of mankind anywhere, anytime, commercial or otherwise" or some equivalent set of caveats?? Apple has indeed stretched truth past the breaking point on numerous occasions, but this is not one of them. The Air is the thinnest notebook on the market, and it's a fair claim by Apple. They are not claiming the thinnest notebook *ever*. If they could have claimed that, they would have. They didn't. It is indeed interesting to note if and when thinner notebooks have been marketed (regardless of commercial success), but the ingress of the article is hardly the place for it. And if you can't be bothered to spend the time to find a reference to refute something, then don't bother at all because you're not refuting anything. And in *any* case, the Pedion claim is dubious, since it's only at the Air's thickest end that the Pedion is minutely thinner - the majority of the Air is thinner than any point on the Pedion. --Psm (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Weight

This being an extremely portable computer whose size and thickness are important specifications, should this page not also contain information on the unit's weight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.161.164 (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The weight isn't really a selling point as it is actually quite heavy relative to competitors. But I suppose it should be added for the sake of completion. 58.167.241.188 (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's already in the article in the specs box under "dimensions".Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Explanatory sentence

The beginning of the Overview section lists a bunch of features that the MacBook Air doesn't have. This needs to be preceded by a sentence explaining why these features are mentioned at all, since these are things that it doesn't have, and you don't normally list everything that isn't there. The reason why they are mentioned is that these are features which we would expect it to have, but which were sacrificed in order to make it smaller and lighter. This is an insightful comparison with other computers. It's a trade off of size versus features.75.168.31.51 (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Processor

How did intel reduced the processor die for 60%. The only possible way is to significantly reduce cache. Can someone conform cache sizes of the processors used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.78.217.176 (talk) 09:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The pin package that the die sits on is what was shrunk. The die is just a standard low voltage 65nm Merom Intel Core 2 Duo. See http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=3201 for more info. --Nbritton (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Misc

Can someone add the resolution of the iSight camera? (76.210.63.170 (talk) 12:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC))

Size of Graphics Memory?

Developer notes says 64 MB, Technical Specifications says 114 MB. What gives? DJ Tricky (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The Tech Specs say Intel GMA X3100 graphics processor with 144MB of DDR2 SDRAM shared with main memory. Published sources are in agreement with the 144 number. Thus, the Developer Notes appear to contain an erratum. I am sure this will be fixed soon. Kaomso (talk) 08:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Portege R200 not thinner

I removed the clause about the Toshiba Portege R200 being thinner than the MA because this Toshiba spec sheet says it's .77 inches thick. PRRfan (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Was about to make the same edit. I also checked the spec pages for the other R200 submodels R200-S2032, R200-S214 and R200-S234 and all have the same dimensions listed (9.9mm 0.30" thinnest to 19.8 mm 0.77" thickest). It is really close though, only 0.4 mm / 0.01" different at the thickest end. PaleAqua (talk) 17:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted. Get me some sandpaper and I'll have mine down to 0.75 inches :) Neıl ☎ 21:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

However Toshiba Portege 2000 IS thinner [3]. Kricke (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Written like a magazine article

The section on the worlds thinnest claim is written like tabloid news. Yes Apple's claim needs qualified, but not in the manner it's been done. Further, why is a majority of the information located in the overview repeated in the specs section (such as the ethernet cable, etc)? Generally the article needs some proper editing with the view that this is an encyclopedia, not The Times. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the section provides proper elucidation of Apple's claim, with proper note that it is not strictly the case. Earlier versions of the article said merely that Apple/Jobs claimed to have "the world's thinnest laptop," which did not reflect the nuance of the claim. Feel free, of course, to suggest alternate wording. PRRfan (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Given the thinness of the MacBook Air is one of its major selling points, a short, referenced section on the claim is entirely appropriate. As PRRfan says, feel free to suggest alternative wording. Neıl ☎ 21:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Green computing - BFR

The section currently states: "Most circuit boards are free of brominated flame retardants." What is being said here? Is this a noteable quality of a MacBook Air? Or was someone lazily refuting the orginal press release-like edit (that is to say: all the manufacturers are switching from BFR, so this doesn't stand out)? --Charles Gaudette (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I reworded it to match the information in the source. Kaomso (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

All LCDs are built on glass substrates. It's that arsenic-free substrate that is important here. The transparent covering to the display is not glass. Lloyd Wood (talk) 11:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Subnotebook?

Is a laptop computer with a full-sized keyboard, trackpad, and 13.3-inch LCD screen really a subnotebook? Kaomso (talk) 04:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Is a laptop computer without ethernet and an optical drive really a complete notebook? -203.188.235.9 (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. The point of the question, however, related to how the article appeared at the time the question was asked. This is a nice write-up. Kaomso (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In a similar vein, I was going to suggest changing its "Type" to 'ultraportable', but Apple uses the term notebook. It's not up to us to judge their use of terminology. Msanford (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Picture of MacBook Air

The previous picture of the MacBook Air, with the screen showing a typical usage scenario, is being discussed as part of a request for deletion over here. Kaomso (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thinnest point is irrelevant

One could make any laptop thinner in that sense by letting a piece of paper stick out somewhere! —Bromskloss (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The article does not make the comparison with the thinnest point. Kaomso (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, but it's still not a very useful piece of information. A bit like "Here's four new tyres for you car. One of them is fit for driving in 300 km/h, with the others, you have to drive slower.". —Bromskloss (talk) 09:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh...

I hate to be the 32nd guy to complain about this article, but is it really necessary to point out that it fits in a manilla envelope? Anybody reading the article will have been told that Apple calls it the world's thinnest laptop, the thickest and thinnest points in inches, and the various things that had to be downsized or removed to make it that small by the time they get there.--206.163.252.30 (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid it needs to be mentioned somehow. The manilla envelope was part of the first presentation of the laptop, and numerous more or less intelligent references on the internet have been made to it. In order for people to understand those references, it should be mentioned here. Mlewan (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

lol MY Macbook Air fits in an envelope....well my laptop has a cd drive Windows 1 Apple 0 Jay794 (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"I'm afraid it needs to be mentioned somehow". Needs to be?! WTF?! An encyclopedia needs to explain "intelligent" (eh?) references to a publicity stunt at a product launch? Let's be sensible, please. Notable and relevant facts, not marketing gimmicks. 86.17.211.191 (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well some marketing gimmicks end up having a notable effect, like Coke's Santa Claus.  :-) --Psm (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Mlewan, I'm not sure an advertisement or marketing ploy needs to be mentioned. The article is about a thin computer, it is not some revolutionary product. The other MacBooks do not mention their past marketing at all, why should this one? I have no idea what Coke's Santa Claus means? And I would imagine that is a purely seasonal marketing plan anyway. I'm removing the manilla envelope reference for the Nth time, many others think this is not necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.197.70.15 (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Not the world's thinnest laptop

It's the 3rd thinnest laptop. And every time I try to make this change, I get reverted. I have sources saying the size of the other 2, and I have a source literally saying it's the third thinnest laptop. Is there any way this can be incorporated into the lead paragraph? I think it should, to make it NPOV. The intro makes one believe it really is the thinnest laptop, while this is not true. нмŵוτнτ 20:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that the consensus both in general, and in discussions here (disclaimer: I've only skimmed them) is that the "world's thinnest laptop" claim refers to computers currently produced, which unless I'm mistaken (which I might be), it is. I do think that the historical thin laptops do deserve a mention in the article, but not in the intro. – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 17:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well, I removed the "world's thinnest" claim from the intro then, as well. It's misleading, and we do not need misleading information in a NPOV encyclopedia. If that claim is made in the article, it needs to say that it is the thinnest currently being produced (not imply that it is the thinnest laptop). In my opinion, Apple is misleading with this, in general, leading the public, including myself, to believe that this is the thinnest laptop ever. As long as the article mentions this, because people are likely researching it to find out this type of information, especially since many blogs and such are talking about how it is not the thinnest, and people want a verifiable place to see which is true, and check Wikipedia (that's what I did).нмŵוτнτ 18:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Re-added with qualification "manufactured today" and reference explaining this. I think this should do. -- Lea (talk) 04:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

But Apple doesn't claim that it's the "thinnest notebook (currently in production)", it claims to be "The world's thinnest notebook."[4] Full stop. Which implies that it's the thinnest in existence which it clearly isn't. Stating this in the intro is entirely appropriate. ʄ!•¿talk? 19:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous

4 millimeters wide at the artistically rounded edges really doesn't count. This is either B.S. or a brochure in an encyclopedia article, or if you want to include it as encyclopedic, point out that people keep trying to imply that it's 4 millimeters thick - a bit like my opponent is a known homosapien and his sister's a thespian! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ElectronicsEnthusiast (talk • contribs) 20:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

How's this as a start for a replacement for the current section, Criticism?

"The MacBook Air has been criticised for its high price compared to other notebooks of similar specifications suggesting that a premium is being paid for its form factor. In addition, the lack of an optical drive and low hard disk space has also drawn criticism. The MacBook Air's battery is not replaceable similar to the iPod and related Apple products." RMFan1 (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Good, i would go ahead and do the replacement and remove the tags. E.3 (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about overheating

The Age is a reputable source, removing the tag. E.3 (talk) 13:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue has nothing to do with the reputability of the source, rather the need for more sources to back up the multiple claims made in the paragraph. If the issues are well documented then this should not be much of a task. The paragraph makes several claims, one about 'CPU lockup' due to overheating. Australia is not uniquely hot, was it because the article was written when it was summer there? Another point is about Apple attempting to fix the issue (and failing), again this is vague. Lastly the statements made that seem to create the problem are also kind of generic. It's obvious that those type of behaviours are likely to increase heat. Overall, very vague and as the tag says it needs some collaborating. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That is the issue, the problem is being caused BY generic types of behaviour that is the reason that customers are concerned in the first place. E.3 (talk) 06:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Further, reading the actual article it cites the Apple discussion boards are their source (or one of them). Discussions are not considered sources on Wikipedia as it is simply original research. Basically at this point a reference from someone authoritative is needed. At it stands now this is original research which was compiled and published on an online agent. See WP:REF, WP:V, WP:OR for more detail. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The age is not an "online agent", see The Age. This article was published in the newspaper, i simply used the online reference for convenience and clarity. If The Age is not able to do original research, who is? I do not believe this is a generic issue at all and I will search for further sources to further this point. I am well aware of the fact that Australia is not uniquely hot, hence why the article says "such as". E.3 (talk) 06:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Found further sources, removing the tag. E.3 (talk) 06:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Templates and Refs

what happened to the templates and refs? something's seriously wrong. can someone take a look at it? i may be able to later, but now, work calls... – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 14:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be fixed now, assuming I didn't miss anything when checking the history. PaleAqua (talk) 07:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks so much! – ɜɿøɾɪɹℲ _{( тɐʟк • ¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs )} 11:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

mba reference?

^ Cite error: Invalid < ref > tag; no text was provided for refs named mba

This is currently the 14th reference. What's going on with this?

Matthew Meta (talk) 22:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Someone deleted the reference defining mba without putting it back into one of the other references. A good rule of thumb is when removing a named reference of the form (<ref name="refname">reftext</ref>), look for one of the matching references that only includes the name (<ref name="refname"/>) and replace it with the full reference. PaleAqua (talk) 23:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

The last few lines in the criticism section need a heavy grammatical overhaul. It is incredibly hard to understand the points that are trying to be put across in the sentences that don't begin with capital letters.