Talk:PowerBook G4

Apple Inc. Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Untitled

Any objections to merging this with PowerBook#PowerBook G4, and changing this to a redirect? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:51, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Updated.

My gosh. Nobody beat me to it? Um... okay. I didn't change much info, but a few rearrangements seemed warranted. that the 15" and 17" AlBook models are widescreen has been true ever since there've been 15" and 17" AlBook models. In fact, it's been true for the 15" models since the TiBooks, but anyway. So anyway, I moved it out of the paragraph about the latest specs, and up to the 2003 introduction of the 15" AlBook.

2. The nifty-keen new technologies introduced this past February are no longer the latest news, so I moved them to a paragraph above the latest-news one. That paragraph REALLY needs some slimming down. I mean, yeah, the USB trackpads (which, as I also noted, were included in some pre-February 'books, including my own late-2004 17-incher) are nifty, and so's SMS (which sadly isn't in mine), but, well, they're not the latest news any more, and that's a big graf.

3. The latest-news paragraph now talks about the increased screen resolutions, standard superdrives on all models, larger HD capacities, standard Cinema-30 support on the 15-inch, and so on.

I hope all these changes are good, and I've tried to keep the language as good as possible, but if there are minor tweaks that need to be made, I'm not easily offended. ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danbirchall (talk • contribs) 20:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC-7)

Apple Computer Inc. Name Change

Should the opening sentence be changed from Apple Computer Inc. to Apple Inc. since the companies name has changed? The sentence is technically correct because when Apple made the Powerboo they were Apple Computer Inc.

Input? 68.77.177.23 21:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

iBook & 12" Powerbook replacement

A continuing theory among mac users is that a 12inch Macbook Pro is being designed to replace the discontinued 12inch Powerbook. Thus, I feel that the statement that the 13inch Macbook replaced both the iBook and 12inch Powerbook to be incorrect. The Macbook was a compromise between the 12 and 14inch iBooks, and retained the look and overall feel of the iBook as well, and does not convey a continuation of features offered in the 12inch powerbook.

So....I think for the time being, the article should be altered to show that the macbook replaced the iBook, and that the 12inch powerbook was not replaced, just discontinued.

Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.176.107.201 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC-7)

identifing PBs

How about including info on how to identify PB by the case marking/model #s:

http://reviews.ebay.com/Apple-Powerbook-Titanium-G4-identification-guide_W0QQugidZ10000000000088471?ssPageName=BUYGD:CAT:-1:SEARCH:1

Point of View in Discontinuation

under Discontinuation: as time passed by and processor technology advanced, it became clear that the aging G4 processor could not live up to the computational demands of today's applications; This is patently ridiculous to me, as I'm writing this on a G4 Powerbook. This is marketing speak and (at least indirectly) advertising- maybe not for a specific product, but certainly sell a "better" model of computer to people like me. If this is an official position of the Apple (Computer) Corp, it should be identified as such and cited. Cuvtixo 14:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with the previous speaker, as I'm still using a last generation G4 Powerbook in june 2009. It's still as capable of running applications such as Photoshop as it was when it was discontinued. As of this date, the only usage I find it struggling with is HD-video playback. [Anonymous] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.172.94.55 (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current paragraph states the G5 chip was too power hungry and heat intensive well then if thats true (and its uncited right now) how is the Intel chip any less power hungry/heat intensive. This is probably not the only reason the PowerBook was retired as well. The transition to Intel chips is not exactly clear cut. And the 12 inch has been eliminated for sometime. This is also not explained. I think this article in general needs to recognize the three different models were quite distinct. .:DavuMaya:. 21:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Models

Ive compeltly redone the most of the Aluminum PB section

Not only was it difficult to read, it failed to separate model changes, and some if not most of the information in "Expansion ports" was wrong.

It also helps tie it in with the structure of the ibook g4 page.

There are some small errors at this stage, but it looks cleaner, contains more information, and is factual, and is more specific.

If people are happy with this new design, ill be more than happy to redo the Titanium section in a similar fashion.

Ill be deleting the Revision section soon as well as its now become redundant.

I have also rewritten the "quality issues" section. This is an encyclopedia, not an essay, people just want the facts. It still needs some work, include other extension programs etc Adderz91 (talk) 04:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Powerbook G4 Titanium" need to be added gahrons (talk) 05:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline links don't work

Hello, I clicked on some of the links in the timeline chart of portable Macintoshes but I always get "This wiki does not exist". I tried to fix it but I can't even find where to edit. Could someone please fix this? Thank you. LovesMacs (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the links work when logged in normally, but the links don't work when logged in using the secure server. Does anybody have a fix for this? LovesMacs (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article subtitles

There were two each of "Industrial design", "Quality issues", and "Models" under both "Titanium PowerBook G4" and "Aluminium PowerBook G4". That actually made sense, but it caused problems with the markup and usage, when returning to the piece after editing a section, or when using the links in the ToC. I've worked around this in (yet another) edit to the article. I'm not happy with the look, particularly in the ToC, but it works now.--Rfsmit (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First with widescreen?

I could be wrong about this, but wasn't the TiBook the first notebook with a widescreen configuration rather than a conventional square-shaped screen? I remember a lot of hub-bub about this when the product was first launched. If this is the case, it should be mentioned here, as widescreen aspect ratios on laptops are now the standard.

69.29.72.186 (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

Apple CEO Steve Jobs noted during the introduction of the MacBook Pro that Apple wants the word "Mac" in the name of all its Mac hardware products. Consequently, the trademark name "PowerBook" was retired in early 2006 despite the G4 version still on support.

The bold text is stricly needs NPOV for me; any toughts regarding the NPOV clarification of me? Junk Police (talk) 07:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)/Last edited by The Junk Police (reports|works) 01:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "Subsequently ...". Removed your POV statement. If someone wants to assume that the one event is connected to the other then that it up to them. - Sitush (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tiBook models table: Maximum Operating System

I think the Maximum OS Version for the DVI (Ivory/Antimony) models should somehow mention the limitation that applies for Leopard since Leopard wants at least a "Mac computer with an Intel, PowerPC G5, or PowerPC G4 (867MHz or faster) processor" (http://support.apple.com/kb/SP517) and refuses to install on a slower PowerBook (although it does run fine on 667MHz) 91.16.111.74 (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of designer

Jonathan Ive, the designer behind all the modern Apple devices hasn't been mentioned in any one of the articles associated with the Apple devices he created, you could argue that Ive is the reason Apple is so famous today, I can only assume it's either due to ignorance or deliberate. Twobells (talk)

Gone ahead and mentioned Ive whose recognition on wikipedia is long overdue.Twobells (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the titanium model the given source credits "Jory Bell and his Apple colleagues Nick Merz and Danny Delulis" and doesn't mention Ive at all. Can you provide a source describing Ive's work on the titanium model? Most references I can find either give Ive sole credit for everything Apple designed post-1998 or they mention his name in passing as head of Apple's design department, in which role he might simply have signed off the design. To my untrained eye the Tibook doesn't look Ive-y, and I worry that Jory Bell, who left Apple under a cloud, will slowly be erased from history. It would be easy to rewrite the current text to read "the Titanium G4 was devised by Apple's design team, led by Jonathan Ive", without crediting anybody else. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]