Talk:Mac Mini

The second picture in the g4 section is inappropriate for the article.

The second picture in the g4 section has an Apple TV along with the Mac Mini. The caption also focuses on the Apple TV's I/O instead of the Mac Mini's. The vnomad (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

That image is pretty similar to the topic, and there's no better free replacement. Wingwatchers (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Be bold and make the change then Subscribe to me (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@QuarioQuario54321,  Fixed Wingwatchers (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mac Mini/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 20:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

As you can see from my user page, I like fixing up old Macs; indeed I am typing this on a 2012 Quad Core I7 Mini with 16GB RAM and 3TB of disk space. So I think I'll be an ideal person to do the review.

I notice there is still a split discussion; I'm going to close that as "no consensus" as there's been hardly any input and the article is now down to a reasonable 18K of prose.

I tend to copyedit and ask questions as I go. Specific comments will follow.

Lead

• "The Mac Mini (stylized as Mac mini)" - is this necessary?
  • Yes, because official stylized name is "Mac mini," not "Mac Mini". It is there to clarify potential confusions. Wingwatchers (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
• The second paragraph mentions the PowerPC G4, but not the switch to Intel - why is that?

 Added Wingwatchers (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Lineup

• "and runs the macOS operating system" - worth qualifying this was called Mac OS X at the time and later OS X?

 Fixed Wingwatchers (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• "A removable panel was attached to the bottom of the chassis of the Mac Minis to allow for Random Access Memory (RAM) upgrades." - this is the only case for 2010, 2011 and 2012 models (and 2018 models, but not by unqualified personnel)  Fixed Wingwatchers (talk)
• "Since the 2011 third generation revision, the Kensington Security Slot and the optical drive were removed from all models" - the Kensington slot is not in the 2010 model either  Removed Wingwatchers (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

First generation (PowerPC G4)

• What makes this post on macrumous.com a reliable source?

This is not an official news article from a MacRumors staff, and it is used in the good article Safari (web broswer) and many others. Wingwatchers (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• "The company described this procedure in detail, including an official Apple part number for a "modified putty knife"" - this doesn't appear to be mentioned in the source given, which looks like a blog

 Removed Wingwatchers (talk)

• "The Mac Mini G4 was supplied with Mac OS X 10.4" - this link as a redirect to Mac OS X Tiger, so should go there instead

 Fixed Wingwatchers (talk)

• "Later, Mac OS 9 was able to run on the Mac Mini G4 through an unofficial patcher, though this was not supported by Apple" - this is cited to a post in macos9lives.com - what makes that a reliable source?

 Removed Wingwatchers (talk)

• In File:Mac Mini G4 Tech specs.jpg, what is the lower picture? It doesn't look like a Mac Mini.

 Removed Wingwatchers (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Second generation (Intel-based)

• "which is based on the Intel Core Solo or Duo CPU, which is four times faster than its predecessor" - do you mean the PowerPC G4?

 Added Wingwatchers (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• "An updated server version of the machine was released in October 2009" - how can a source from 2005 verify something in 2005?

 Added Wingwatchers (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• "which could be replaced with 64-bit Core 2 Duo processors through a simple upgrade" - I think this needs to be qualified. Compared to a desktop PC, replacing a CPU is not simple! Do you mean it's simple as in you could take it to Apple for an upgrade?

 Fixed Wingwatchers (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• "If the 2006 model is upgraded to a Core 2 Duo CPU, it can support up to 2 GB of memory and can run Mac OS X Lion through a minor modification" - what makes either of the two sources citing this reliable?
• "Some users have found such upgrades" - which users exactly?
•  Fixed Wingwatchers (talk)
• "While the Mac Mini G4 contains a separate GPU, except in the 2011 2.5 GHz model has a separate AMD Radeon GPU" - this doesn't make sense. PowerPC Macs were dead by 2011.

 Fixed Wingwatchers (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC) The last paragraph of the "Hardware" subsection doesn't appear to be sourced. The single citation at the end doesn't verify any of the claims in it.  Removed No reliable source found for this topic Wingwatchers (talk)

Third generation (Unibody)

• What CPU does the original 2010 unibody model have? (AFAIK Core 2 Duo, but this should be mentioned with a source)

 Added Wingwatchers (talk)

• "Apple updated the line on October 23, 2012" - is the exact date important, or will "October 2012" suffice? Also, I'm not sure this date is correct, as it's the date the Verge reported the new models, not when they actually shipped.

 Fixed Wingwatchers (talk)

• "On October 16, 2014" - same again

 Fixed Wingwatchers (talk)

• "Memory can again be replaced, although it is not officially user-replaceable according to Apple, and requires service by an Apple Store or Apple Authorized Service Provider." - this is not true for either the 2012 (user upgradable) or 2014 (soldered) models. I think this is in the wrong place, so I've moved it
•  Already done Wingwatchers (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Reception

• This section doesn't look long enough. The 2014 models came in for criticism for removing the quad core CPU option and upgradeable RAM. Everymac.com described it as "one step forward, one step back". The lack of an SD slot has been a common criticism of Macs generally for video content creators for years, which is why newer MacBooks are putting them back. There should be something about the performance of the 2020 M1 Model, which had very positive coverage for its speed and performance. There should be something about the lack of upgradability contributing to e-waste.

 Partly done Wingwatchers (talk) 02:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)  Done Wingwatchers (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Home theater and server

• "As of the June 2011 revision" - that's ten years out of date

 Removed It is a repetition of the features on the June 2011 model, so it have really nothing to do with the theater. Wingwatchers (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

General

• About ten years ago, there was a discussion (when Macintosh was delisted at WP:FAR) about whether everymac.com was reliable. Personally, I think it is, it cannot be user generated and whenever I have looked up a spec on it, it has been correct.
  • I hopes Macintosh will be relisted to featured status in the near future. Wingwatchers (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• There needs to be better definition of the models by years. Many Mac users identify their model what's printed on the "Apple / About this Mac" dialog: ie: Mid 2010, Mid 2011, Late 2012 etc.
  • I think that is sufficient enough; can't really add the year the models is released on their respective section because almost every models were cross-yearly released. Wingwatchers (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Summary

There's a bit more required before this can meet the GA criteria, but not a significant amount, so I'll put the review on hold now pending improvements. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, how's progress going with this? The "Reception" section is still quite short, as discussed above. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

 Working@Ritchie333 Wingwatchers (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 All  Done Wingwatchers (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Wondering if you can now pass the review?? Wingwatchers (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, this looks a lot better now, so I'll pass it. Well done. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Split by CPU?

Now that were are two revisions deep into Apple Silicon, should we go for another round of splitting? And if not now, should we wait for the inevitable redesign? QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Not seeing any basis. We're at 21KB prose size, so a size split isn't warranted. And they're ultimately all revisions of the same product, so a "scope split" isn't warranted either. The distinction between CPU also seems arbitrary. Why not keep all the information in one place? DFlhb (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The MacBook Air and MacBook Pro split by CPU type and have their Apple Silicon models in a separate page. The iMac has to split between G3, G4, G5, Intel, and Apple Silicon. So there is precedent. The MacBook Air I think split immediately after Apple Silicon came out while the MacBook Pro took a while but it happened. If now isn't the time should we wait for the third revision of Apple silicon or the inevitable redesign? QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I oppose all the splits people did after Apple silicon came out, since none of those splits made any sense.

To use iMac as an example: "iMac G5" was an official product names, just like "iPhone 14" is. So at the time, reputable secondary sources adopted "iMac G3" and "iMac G4" as retronyms. So we get to treat them as distinct products without WP:OR.

But then Apple went back to calling every model "iMac" (no suffix). Secondary sources never treated all Intel iMacs as a single product, and all Apple silicon iMacs as a single product, so it's completely arbitrary for us to do so.

For the same reason, it makes zero sense for us to declare that the 2006 and 2016 MacBook Pro belong in the same article, but separate from the 2020 MacBook Pro. Equivalent pages (like ThinkPad X series) have one page per product line, and that's what we should go back to.

Splits should only happen for products that received (1) significant third-party coverage, and (2) were given a distinct, non-OR name by secondary sources (like iMac G3, or "TouchBar MacBook Pro"). The arbitrary splits should be undone. DFlhb (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

It also more actively done by processor type than by name so people just saw the change in processor to be the logical boundary line. The Intel models couldn't really be split up by processor type so they decided just to have them all in together. Then once Apple Silicon rolled around people saw it as the logical thing to do. Early on the Intel iMac page was titled "Intel iMac" but was changed because people thought it would possibly confuse people into thinking intel made the iMac. QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

I won't restate my arguments, but you might want to see this WikiProject discussion in which these splits were brought up. For an inactive project with poorly maintained pages, arbitrary splits just increase the maintenance burden even further. DFlhb (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

To add further, outside of size concerns, we shouldn't be splitting and developing our own nomenclature beyond what reliable sources say; to do otherwise is original research. As brought up at some List of... AfDs relating to Apple coverage on Wikipedia, if sources aren't grouping things the way Wikipedia is, Wikipedia is wrong. (Honestly I see this as a recurring problem with a ton of our content where we decide on "generations" and name them in a way they don't appear to have been by the press.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

But later on it seems like OR is acceptable if the definition is on objective criteria and has precedent. The split is clearly based on the iMac and MacBooks. Would we split the Mac Pro once the Apple Silicon model comes out? QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Would we split the Mac Pro once the Apple Silicon model comes out? Did the product name change? Do our reliable sources call them different names? Is the article reaching a size where this makes sense as a breaking point for splitting it up? —Locke Cole • t • c 18:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

People split the iPad Pro up even without a name change. And the MacBook Air pretty much immediately got an article split and the MacBook Pro got one after a year, and a redesign. QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Just because other editors do something wrong doesn't make that the standard. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with everything DFlhb has said on the topic, including a disdain for splitting other articles over chipsets. As discussed in a section above, if a split is desired, I agree that overwhelming tables of technical data should be first to be sequestered away from general audiences; this is an encyclopedia after all. — HTGS (talk) 12:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree with this. No reason to separate this article out by architecture, but the tables would be best placed in their own articles, as it true of many articles on computers and computer parts. Would like to see this applied broadly across Wikipedia. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Generations WP:OR

Is there any source that backs up these "generations", or did we make them up? DFlhb (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

After looking into it; our nomenclature is WP:OR, but it's based on objective criteria; the delineation is fine.

But calling them "generations" seems too arbitrary; ask any tech journalist about "the 4th generation Mac mini" and they'll give you a blank look. Renaming the headings is likely all that's needed. DFlhb (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

What else would they be called? If you ask someone what a 3rd generation MacBook Pro is, they'll be conclusive it's the original retina model. Although I think they'd have more of a clue if we split them up by processor type. QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

What do our reliable sources, or, Apple, call them? —Locke Cole • t • c 18:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure? Mainstream press identifies them by year, like "MacBook Pro (Early 2015)"; IT professionals identify them by model number ("A1502"); and very few people use model identifier (MacBook Pro 12,1). But I've never heard anyone refers to any modern Mac by "generation".

MacBook Pro: here are the official Apple designations, and a few reliable sources: [1][2][3]. For Mac Mini: official designations, and reliablce sources: [4] [5]. I'm very confident that any use of this "generations" nomenclature by a handful of secondary sources is WP:CITOGENESIS. Apple never designates generations; not in keynotes, or specs sheets, or ever. DFlhb (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Update to Supported systems\Windows versions section

Windows 11 was released way back in 2021. Yet there is no mention of Windows 11 in the Windows versions section. Theoretically the 2018 Mac mini should be able to support Windows 11 as the 2018 Mac mini has an eighth-generation Intel CPU and Microsoft says that any eight-generation or newer Intel cpu will officially be able to support Windows 11. Theoretically ANY Mac mini with at least 4gb RAM, 64gb SSD and a 64-bit CPU should be able to run Windows 11, although older cpus may need a patch/hack to install. 182.58.229.251 (talk) 12:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC)