Talk:macOS/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Criticisms section coming back

Well, I re-created the criticisms section, because I think it should exists. I do use Mac OS X, but I think some features are broken. I went on google and searched for credible sources who said that things were not perfect in Mac OS X. The articles I retrieved are written by John Siracusa at Ars Technica, Bruce Tognazzini who wrote the Apple Human Interface Guidelines, and other less important authors. I think it is a fairly good source of credible complaints about Mac OS X, since they are not just Mac OS X bashers, but rather say that some features of Mac OS X are broken.

The section isn't perfect, so feel free to add content, change syntax or even delete some part if you have a good rationale. Nevertheless, I think that it's a good base to a true criticisms section that reflects the opinion of at least some Mac OS X users. Dravick 00:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I happened to come across this article today, at least the problems are reported by journalists even if all of them aren't major: 15 Things Apple Should Change in Mac OS X. http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9006104 --TuukkaH 01:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that article too, but I didn't really understood some of the points, and most of them aren't criticisms, just requested enhancements. Go ahead if you can get something out of that article, but I really didn't know what to write with that. Dravick 03:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to add a 'criticisms' section, by all means do so, but the current version will not suffice. Quite frankly, the arguments don't make any sense. I'm moving it here until it can be re-written. EricNau 06:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have much to say about the 'criticisms' section, but the X11 criticism has to go. X11 has its own rules, and there's really no way to make X11 apps behave like native Cocoa applications, so this is really a criticism of X11 and not Mac OS X. MFNickster 07:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I understand it cannot be exactly the same, but things like clipboard could work correctly. I personnally think that X11.app is not at its best (I agree with the journalists), so I won't remove it. Do it if you REALLY feel that it shouldn't be there. Dravick 22:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed the moved part, since it's no longer up to date and the section is back in the article Dravick 20:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to give a big thanks to Warrens, since the criticism section is much better with his contributions. Dravick 17:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dravick, I appreciate that! :-) Yeah, these sections always seem to read better when we say who exactly the critic is, and why their thoughts are important enough to quote in an encyclopedia article. That way we can leave a value judgement of the criticism to the reader. Some counter-criticism would be nice, too, so that we can present both sides of the debate fairly... Daring Fireball might be a good place to go sifting for useful links. -/- Warren 17:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the Mac OS ain't perfect (what is?). The only "counter" I can think of is to point out that the behavior being criticized is the default config of the Finder. From "old Finder mode" to selecting what folder double-click behavior is to deciding what controls you want to show in the toolbar, you can turn off a lot of the browser-like features and make it be a more consistently spatial interface. Maybe I'll edit the article.

--Jason C.K. 06:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I read the "lost Finder" article...he says the Finder has lots of bugs & strange behaviors, same as the article claims...but it doesn't detail a single bug or strange behavior. 1 blogger claiming that the Finder is often attacked, for unspecified bugs & behavior, doesn't justify the text "The Finder is often attacked for its strange behaviour and bugs." I'm probably going to delete the citation, tag with "fact", and see if anyone wants to come up with a reasl source or we'll just delete that claim.

--Jason C.K. 06:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Was going to revert obscene vandalism from 08 Feb 2006, but it was already corrected in under 2 hours. Great job, Wiki community. 205.235.34.66 15:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This section should remain. The rest of the article reads as a corporate-marketing endorsement, countervailing perspectives should be provided a place. 70.178.58.155 19:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

References

User:AlistairMcMillan deleted parts of the criticisms section because the references were, in fact, weblog pages and users opinions. Now, I agree that a random weblogger is way less notable than i.e. Bruce Tognazzini's opinion. Nevertheless, does the fact that someone is not a former Apple engineer means that his web page, regardless of the content or the points being made in it, automatically is not suitable for a reference ? Dravick 23:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

My problem with those sources is nothing to do with whether they had previously been Apple engineers or not. My problem with them is that we are supposed to be citing "reliable published sources". I don't think random people posting to their own blogs or posting comments on a public forum meet the standard of "reliable" or "published". There is a big difference between comments from people like Tog, Siracusa and Gruber and Mr. IDon'tWantToUseMyRealName WeblogPoster or Mr. CheckMyFunnySig ArsForumPoster. AlistairMcMillan 05:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I understand. Anyway, those sections did suck (and I'm not blaming anyone, I wrote them). Dravick 05:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, yeah. I've posted my own somewhat lengthy criticisms of some aspects of the OS X UI (most recently Time Machine) on the Ars Technica forums, and I'm pretty much positive I and my peers don't qualify as a "reliable source". My only claim to fame in the community is working on these articles. :-) There are a number of fairly notable Mac people on Ars (like the guy who wrote Coverflow, to name one example), but that still doesn't make it good enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, even if the points made by individual posters are good.

Dravick: There are still some interesting areas where we should be able to find criticism. Surely someone notable has complained about the fact that OS X is the only general-purpose operating system that's forcibly locked to a single vendor's hardware platform? How about some "from the other side" criticism from the likes of Windows advocates like Paul Thurrott? -/- Warren 05:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Dock's "new feature"

To User:Esheldon: I don't know what "new feature" you are talking about. Look at the given image, then tell me how you can distinguish between items without a mouse over, and this is a screenshot of the latest Dock version in OS X 10.4.8. Now I removed your modifications, but if you can explain it better, or if you are approved by at least other wikipedian, then maybe it will be suitable to be in the article. Dravick 08:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you crank up the Dock magnification, you can sort of tell the difference - I popped up the main pages of the Wikipedia and the Uncyclopedia, and then minimized them both to the Dock; at maximum Dock magnification, you can tell the difference between the globe[1] and the potato[2], but at normal size, it might not be possible to tell the difference (you can tell by the color, but if you don't know what you're looking for...). (I.e., the feature exists, at least as of 10.4.8, but whether it makes enough of a difference is another matter. Then again, I never minimize documents to the Dock, so perhaps I'm not the right person to speak about this....). Guy Harris 09:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but that section is about closed documents anyway, so I don't think it applies Dravick 18:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I missed that you were specifically referring to "Closed documents". I had never used, or seen anyone use, this feature. I tried it out and I agree it is completely useless (Esheldon 19:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)).

Kernel performance criticism

Remember this infamous article from about a year and a half ago? I remember it getting fairly wide coverage for a long time afterwards, especially the MySQL benchmark aspect of it. Here's a Siracusa article with lots of links to relevant stuff, too. Should we add this in? I'm not really sure what the state of this criticism is now... -/- Warren 04:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but keep it short. Remember that this information is relevant for relatively few people and article is already full of programming stuff. Nonetheless it's a great idea to add this. Try to search for other sources as well, I remember that there was some other article on kernel/server performance. Mac OS X is clearly lacking in this but it is really relevant to servers only.--Pethr 06:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

And please don't take all the stuff in the "infamous article" seriously - for example, the speculation that OS X threading is done in userland is completely wrong (each pthread has a Mach thread associated with it) - it's OK to talk about the numbers, but any statements about what the Darwin layer of OS X does by somebody who hasn't Read The Fine Code should be checked by Reading The Fine Code first. Guy Harris 09:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This is probably one of the most interesting responses to the Anandtech article. From Peter Ammon, an Apple developer who works on Mac OS X: http://ridiculousfish.com/blog/?p=17 AlistairMcMillan 19:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to put up fixes to the problems stated in the criticism section. What do I need to do so? --Moriatti July 2nd 2007

Creation of an entire section devoted to criticism is not necessary and generally discouraged per Wikipedia:Criticism. I believe the quality of the article would be approved if the section was removed and its content relocated to more appropriate sections to reduce the amount of POV in this article. Iccdel 02:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the Dock

There is a large mistake in the criticism of the dock section. The article describes it as taking up too much space and being cumbersome. This is not a reasonable claim, as the dock is completely resizeable. 75.16.164.211 14:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's a mistake, it's attributable to Tognazzini, the author of the critical article. He does acknowledge that it's resizeable, but doesn't see that as much help, saying "Yes, you can set it much smaller, but then you make it progressively more difficult to identify an icon without 'scrubbing' the screen with your mouse to reveal its label." Regardless, our job is not to provide counter-arguments but to report on the criticism that has been published elsewhere. MFNickster 19:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Propose splitting timeline into its own article

The timeline is really just an exhaustive history. It's taking up a large portion of this article which could be used for other purposes. I propose moving the bulk of it (as in the new features added in each version) to a new article with the timeline graphic. Thoughts? Chris Cunningham 10:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If you do, you will have to leave a summary here, as the article would otherwise stand incomplete without it. Tito xd^(?!?) 05:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Propose making versions a list or table with fewer details

Does it make sense to repeat the features of each version of the OS in this section when they are outlined, often in more detail, in their on their own pages? I suggest we remove the 'new features' lists from this page, and keep the summaries short (if there at all). I personally believe that it would be best to remove all details and make a list or table with but a handful of details.CtrlC CtrlV 21:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed a lot of details, which can all be found in their respective article. Dravick 23:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Now this is done, surely the preceding body-text has to be re-written? It lists Tiger as being the latest version... (MonstaPro 15:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC))

Ready to be Featured Article Candidate ?

Reading the failed featured candidate page here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mac OS X/archive1 and correcting what went wrong, I think this article is ready to be proposed as a featured article. Is it ? Do you see something else to modify ? There is two point I didn't do from the comments on the FAC page I didn't do intentionnally. First, I don't think the "Pricing" section needs a reference. Anyway, Mac OS X price can be found in the Apple Store, but the latter can't be linked. Second, I left the "Prominent Features" as a list, because I think it is better that way. There was also the thing about the article being unstable because of the OS X v10.5 entry, making unable to comply to the Criterion 1(e). This criterion is about edit wars, not future products. Dravick 23:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is ready.

With each new version, Mac OS X evolved away from a focus on backward compatibility with the earlier versions of Mac OS toward an emphasis on "digital lifestyle" applications such as the iLife suite, enhanced business applications (iWork), and integrated home entertainment (the Front Row media center). This is generalization and sounds a bit speculative to me. Wikipedia doesn't state conclusions but rather cites facts that let everyone create own conclusion.
Mac OS X was a radical departure from previous Macintosh operating systems Sounds like weasel to me.

Disagree - I added that sentence and I consider it factually correct, because the NeXT/Unix underpinnings are nothing like the previous Mac OS at the root (i.e. "radically" different). MFNickster 04:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You can say that the underpinnings are different. Please note the difference in meaning - they "radically" left the old OS/platform versus they changed the core. And this section really is about the core not about entire platform.--Pethr 04:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you think the phrase is saying, but the change was "radical" in both senses, in that it was a radical move for Apple as a company and (my intended meaning) that the system is completely different in its origins or roots. I stand by it. MFNickster 04:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's not enough for YOU to say it's "radical"...you either have to quote someone authoritative who says this was a radical change or that changing architectures is a big deal, or you can factually, objectively describe the change (i.e.--"Apple ditches 17 years of home-grown single-user Classic code and makes multi-tasking, multi-user Unix the new base, then writes brand-new graphical shell to go on top of it") and let the reader decide if it sounds like a big change to them.

--Jason C.K. 08:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on! This is not editorializing at all. It's hardly a controversial statement, it's simply my choice of wording. Weasel words are used to 'smuggle in' a POV, I'm interested in what POV you think this represents and how you would argue that it's not in fact a radical departure from previous Mac OS versions. FWIW, "radical" does not necessarily mean "big" or "extensive." MFNickster 00:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I use only Mac OS X at home, I like it, we all know it was a radical re-write. I think the problem with saying "radical" is not that it's weasel, it's that it's a subjective evaluation that you are making, kind of original research. We're not supposed to put our evaluations into this, are we? Essentially, you have inserted your POV that it's radical. Of course, I agree, it is radical, many people will, but you just saying so isn't wiki-approved. SHOULD you have to cite it? Well, it is a subjective eval, wiki probably calls for all of those to be cited. I don't think this SHOULD be a controversial statement, yet evidently someone has objected, and not incorrectly...subjective statements aren't wiki-approved. Personally, I think you should cite it, I think it's easy to do so, but ultimately I'm not going to worry about it. I have no plans to delete it, "fact" tag it, or anything...I'm just saying I agree in principle, you should be citing it.

--Jason C.K. 04:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The root of my argument (forgive the expression!) is that the statement is not subjective-- I consider it to be a factual statement, and not inaccurate. The suggestion that we should have to research whether anyone else has called it a "radical change" is nitpicking, to the point of reducing every editor's writing style to a simple regurgitation of material from external sources. I don't believe that's what writing Wikipedia articles is about, and I think sourcing a generalized lead line to a section is overkill. MFNickster 05:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point. I am possibly even swayed. Certainly in sufficiently simple cases of fact, "original research" can be taken too far. I shouldn't have to cite a source if I want to say something factual like "the Dock icons can expand as your mouse pointer passes over them." But like I said, I'm not worrying about it, was just throwing in my 2 cents.

--Jason C.K. 06:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

For that reason, there are often debates to determine whether the complete operating system should be labeled as closed source or not. Who debates it? Source needed. To add my opinion, Mac OS X can't be labeled open source since considerable part of the thing is closed.
However, Aqua has been said to be a bold and innovative step forward in a time when user interfaces were seen as being "dull and boring". Citing reader's feedback from Thinksecret as evidence? I don't know, it doesn't look very good. (same for the sentence before this)
This heritage is highly visible for Cocoa developers, since most Cocoa class names begin with the "NS" prefix, for NEXTSTEP. I don't think this carries any information for outsiders.
PowerPC versions of Mac OS X retain compatibility with older Mac OS applications by providing an emulation environment called Classic, which allows users to run Mac OS 9 as a process within Mac OS X, so that most older applications run as they would under the older operating system. Nevertheless, Classic is not supported on newer Intel-based Macs. Why is this in HW section? This is in fact the information I'd expect in Software section since all the programming thing is described in too much detail and I doubt that everyone can really understand most of it. Also note that almost whole paragraph is single sentence. Definitely hard to read.

I very much appreciate the work you've done recently on this article, it's much better now but may be some more editing can make it better in terms of Wikipedia policies as well. It would be helpful to wait for Leopard release since then the article will be less about rumors and more about facts. I might have a look on this article too but I have other priorities now and my English isn't that good.--Pethr 00:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much ! I agree with all of them, and I (or someone else before me) will correct these soon. Dravick 02:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure. I will finish reading the article then. It would be also helpful to bring in some other editor as well. You know, you are doing great job but nobody can do it just by himself. If you know anybody on Wikipedia with knowledge of the subject, he can give us different perspective. Also sourcing is very important. I randomly selected one footnote which should include source for the first release to use its code name as part of the branding. The note is press release and doesn't include such info (I only searched it I might be wrong). Generaly speaking I don't like blogs and rumor sites as sources (press releases only where appropriate, f.e. release dates) but sometimes there's no other choice. Be bold and don't hesitate to reshuffle the article a bit, it might work better. May be this gives you some idea what to search for.--Pethr 02:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that would be a good thing if other editors could join, since even if I try to have a neutral point of view, I can't change my writing style. For the 'branding' thing, well, "Jaguar" is mentionned in the headline, something that never has been done before (I will add that in the footnote). Thanks again! Dravick 05:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

iPhone OS X

have a read - http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/01/13/ultimate-iphone-faqs-list-part-2/ Jobs says "It’s not the entire Mac OS X, (...) and of course the interface has been redesigned for phone use"... implying that it is still Mac OS X, and not 'OS X', a separate OS. Sfacets 04:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter, as long as Apple is calling it OS X we are sticking with it as well.--Pethr 04:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Steve Jobs said (in the link above) that it was a modified version of "Mac OS X". Sfacets 06:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

And the new Volkswagen Beetle is a modified Volkswagen Golf. AlistairMcMillan 06:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Just like the Audi TT. And just like the OS on the Sharp Zaurus is related to the OS on <pick your favorite PC running Linux>. The question is to whom is that relevant? For some people, the fact that it runs apps that might have somewhat the same feel as the apps on their Macs might be sufficient. For others, the fact that, although it might in theory be possible to build handheld versions of particular apps to run on the iPhone might be interesting, the fact that Apple apparently aren't currently planning on allowing that to happen renders it less relevant - but that might just be a question of Apple policy rather than one of the technical capabilities of the platform. (A version of Cocoa or even Carbon that let you write apps that could adapt themselves to computers or phones without too much effort would arguably be Way Cool. I have no idea whether the Cocoa on the iPhone lets you do that or not.)

Time will tell to whom the apparent genetic connection between Mac OS X and iPhone OS X will make a difference. Guy Harris 08:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually Jobs was likely correct. I suspect the iPhone OS X is Darwin ported to whatever the processor in the phone is. It wouldn't be that hard, Darwin is a fork of FreeBSD so it's a very versitle kernel Nil Einne 11:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Darwin includes code ported from FreeBSD but it is not a fork of FreeBSD. And it uses its own kernel, it does not include the FreeBSD kernel. AlistairMcMillan 14:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be widespread misunderstanding of the relationship between the Darwin/XNU kernel and the FreeBSD kernel. The Mac OS X kernel, XNU is, in most senses, a fork of the FreeBSD kernel. It combines code from OSF Mach, FreeBSD, and certain Apple-specific elements such as HFS+ and IOKit. Over time, the kernels have diverged, but code moves back and forth frequently: for example, the FreeBSD 6.x audit implementation comes straight from the Darwin kernel, and the Mac OS X smbfs support and Mac OS X Leopard kernel security framework (MAC Framework) are straight from the FreeBSD kernel. If you look at the top-level source tree for XNU, you will see it has osfmk, iokit, and bsd directories -- while the BSD code in Darwin has been extensively modified, it comes from the FreeBSD kernel and includes the copyrights of countless FreeBSD developers. If the Darwin kernel runs relatively unmodified on the iPhone, then the kernel on the iPhone contains significant quantities of FreeBSD kernel code. If it has been extensively modified or isn't a Darwin kernel, then that may not be the case. -rwatson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.111.8.102 (talk) 11:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm sorry but taking parts of FreeBSD kernel code and adding them to the Mach kernel, does not make XNU a fork of the FreeBSD kernel, it makes XNU a fork of the Mach kernel. AlistairMcMillan 12:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree - you could just as easily say that they took the FreeBSD kernel and replaced parts of it with Mach code. Also, this isn't and "either/or" situation; XNU doesn't have to be a fork of Mach or a fork of FreeBSD, it really is both. MFNickster 14:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you basing this idea on? They take the Mach kernel and add FreeBSD bits to it. Not the other way around. It ain't a fork of the FreeBSD kernel. http://kernelthread.com/mac/osx/arch_xnu.html AlistairMcMillan 14:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm basing it somewhat on the description given in the fork article, which says "a project fork happens when developers take a copy of source code from one software package and start independent development on it, creating a distinct piece of software." I think that accurately describes what NeXT/Apple have done with BSD. The fact that they combined it with Mach, or that the end result is not comparable to FreeBSD as a whole, doesnt mean it's not forked from it. MFNickster 22:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, come on, you should know not to depend on Wikipedia articles as sources, that unsourced sentence has changed radically since the beginning of the year. Aside from that, Apple didn't "start" anything when they took the code from FreeBSD, they added it to something they already had. In point of fact they actually swapped it out for something they already had, the 4.4BSD or 4.3BSD or whateverBSD code that was in there through the 'STEPs and Rhapsody. Which is why it is a Mach fork and not a FreeBSD fork. AlistairMcMillan 05:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, what is a "fork" to you then? I don't have a problem with the definition fork gives; it's a new project based on an old project's code. Is there any reason XNU could not be a fork of both Mach and BSD? MFNickster 06:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

XNU wasn't a "new project" when the FreeBSD code was added. The FreeBSD code was added to something that had been around already for quite a few years. Take the DTrace code in 10.5 as another example. I believe that at least some of the DTrace stuff goes into the kernel. So you could say that stuff was "ported" to the XNU kernel, you wouldn't say the XNU kernel is now a fork of the Solaris kernel. AlistairMcMillan 16:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well and good, but you haven't answered my question. They took FreeBSD code from that project and used it to make a FreeBSD-like system on top of Mach. How is that not a fork of FreeBSD as well as Mach? MFNickster 03:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Because they added the code to a project that already existed. Forking is usually taking something, using it as the starting point and going in a different direction. WebCore is a good example of a fork. They were starting with a blank slate, they took the KHTML code as a whole and went off in their own direction with it. AlistairMcMillan 03:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Rhapsody was a new project, as there was no PPC version of NEXTSTEP before. I would say that Darwin took Mach, FreeBSD and NEXTSTEP as a starting point and went in a different direction. You don't need a blank slate to fork a project, all you need to do is develop something with the code that is separate from the parent project. MFNickster 19:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this is getting ridiculous. How can you call it a new project, when it is the same code, even being worked on by some of the same people? They bought NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP and turned it into Mac OS X, with a brief period in between where it was called Rhapsody (which please remember was not PPC only). Porting the operating system to a new platform doesn't make it a fork. Perhaps if the NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP people had continued their operating system alongside Rhapsody, you could call it a fork, but the NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP work fed directly into Rhapsody.

And please don't perpetuate the Slashdot crap about Apple taking Darwin and building Mac OS X on top, when the truth is the exact opposite. They worked on Mac OS X for ages and then extracted the parts they released as Darwin.

This is my last comment on the subject, unless you can find an Apple source saying something along the lines of "...we forked the FreeBSD kernel..." AlistairMcMillan 20:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have anything from Apple, sorry, but this diagram makes the forking relationships pretty clear. I think your complaint is based on a misperception of forking as an "is-a" kind of relationship, but it's not. Rhapsody was a PPC fork of NEXTSTEP in the same way that Yellow Dog Linux is a PPC fork of Fedora. If any code is taken from another project and devloped and maintained separately, even if new code or code from other projects is incorporated, it is a fork, period. I honestly don't understand why you find this contentious. MFNickster 21:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That is fascinating, would you mind explaining how Yellow Dog Linux (first released in 1999) was forked from Fedora (first released in 2003)? Aside from that, you are almost right in that Yellow Dog Linux was "started" with Red Hat code. Please note the difference from XNU though, the Yellow Dog project "started" with Red Hat code. The kernel that later became known as XNU (originally simply called "kernel" it seems) started in 1986, while the FreeBSD code was added to the kernel around about 1999.

I was just going by what Yellow Dog says here, that it's "built on the Fedora core," but call it a fork of Red Hat if you like. MFNickster 21:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

How the hell can Rhapsody be a fork when there was only one direction? When Rhapsody was started, NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP ended (bug fixes aside). AlistairMcMillan 21:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I give up. You win. It's impossible to fork a project unless the parent continues to be developed in its own direction by different people. A project that combines code from other projects can only be a fork of one of them. XNU is actually just Mach with "some FreeBSD code" ported in. MFNickster 21:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Even look at Apple's documentation: "The Mac OS X kernel is the fundamental layer of the Mac OS X operating system. This environment includes the I/O Kit, the Mach kernel, and a BSD personality layer." http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Kernel-date.html

And remember up until Rhapsody, the BSD parts of the kernel came from a different BSD altogether. AlistairMcMillan 14:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

As the person who speaks of "widespread misunderstanding of the relationship between the Darwin/XNU kernel and the FreeBSD kernel" says, "the BSD code in Darwin has been extensively modified"; one could, at best, say the BSD part of the XNU was a fork of the FreeBSD kernel, planting parts of it atop Mach and connecting other parts of it to the I/O Kit, but "extensively" is most definitely true - much of the code is very different from that of FreeBSD. (smbfs, for example, is NOT "straight from the FreeBSD kernel"; show me the Kerberos support in FreeBSD's smbfs, for example. The VFS layer was also significantly changed from that of FreeBSD.)

XNU, overall, is not a "fork of the FreeBSD kernel"; it's the combination of a fork of the Mach 3.0 kernel, code from the FreeBSD kernel, and the I/O Kit. The BSD-layer code is as much a "fork of FreeBSD" as FreeBSD and NetBSD are "forks of 386BSD".

And to go back to the original statement that lead to this long digression, "I suspect the iPhone OS X is Darwin ported to whatever the processor in the phone is. It wouldn't be that hard, Darwin is a fork of FreeBSD so it's a very versitle kernel", the high-level code might resemble its FreeBSD predecessors, but most UN*X kernels these days are reasonably portable, so there's nothing special about FreeBSD there - NEXTSTEP, another source of kernel code for XNU, ran on 68k and x86 (and perhaps 88k as well), and later ran on SPARC and PA-RISC - and the lower-level parts that deal with the hardware are as much bits of Mach as they are bits of BSD.

I.e., crediting Darwin's portability solely or primarily to it being a "fork of FreeBSD" is misleading. Guy Harris 18:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That view makes sense to me, though my understanding of the internals is limited. The point being you can't make conclusions about what XNU can do based on what the FreeBSD kernel can do? MFNickster 18:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The answer to that would be a big yes. Like Guy says they made a lot of changes to the BSD parts, so aside from the obvious differences because of the Mach code, the BSD parts also behave differently. Here is an article on Apple's site that talks about some of these changes: http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Darwin/Conceptual/KernelProgramming/BSD/chapter_11_section_3.html AlistairMcMillan 05:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, twenty levels of indentation is just too much. Who cares if the Mac OS X kernel is a fork of the FreeBSD one ? I mean, the point was that porting Darwin to a new processor is easy. Dravick 03:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Easter Egg

Am I the only one to think that no one cares about the 'easter eggs' in Mac OS X, and that it should not be in Mac OS X article page ? Dravick 18:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You´re not the only one, I removed it. I´d liek to see a separate article on those things but it has certainly no place here. Thanks for pointing it out.--Pethr 19:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think there is need for a separate article on Mac OS X easter eggs, especially since there hardly are any to talk of. AlistairMcMillan 19:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be a separate page, but it is important that the main OS X page have a link to it, prominetly placed. --Lorductape 17:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Putting aside the fact that there are very few easter eggs in Mac OS X, please read WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOTE. AlistairMcMillan 23:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext

Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext is too short and too unique to Mac OS X to have its own article. I should be merged in here. Chris Cunningham 12:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree the DSMOX.kext article is not really worth having as a separate article. However where would you put it in this article? It seems to trivial to be added to the Mac OS X v10.4 section or the other sections that touch on the Intel version of OS X. Maybe it should go to the "Mac OS X v10.4" or "Apple Intel transition" article. AlistairMcMillan 18:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved suggestion to Mac OS X v10.4#Trivia. Dravick 02:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext AlistairMcMillan 11:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Changed the pronunciation from IPA characters to 'Mac O-S Ten'. I think this makes it more readily understood. Also it makes it accurate for international readers. Oliverkroll 18:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's manual of style regarding pronunciation. Also don't understand why you say changing from IPA makes it accurate for international users, when that is in fact the entire purpose of IPA. If you don't know English, you don't know how to pronounce "Mac O-S Ten" and many languages don't even use the Latin alphabet. —bbatsell ¿? 18:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:Bbatsell. 'Mac O-S Ten' is not pronunced à la english in many or most other languages, so it certainly does not make it accurate for international readers. Dravick 19:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. O-S Ten? A what? That would be the likely reaction:)--Pethr 22:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I meant readers who speak non-American varieties of English. /mak əʊ ɛs tɛn/ would be more like my pronunciation. Of course the IPA system has advantages, but the main point here is that X is pronounced like Ten, and I was just trying to put that across more straightforwardly. Oliverkroll 11:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Oliverkroll. I don't think "Mac OS" is hard to pronounce at all. To use IPA for that (that look like Greek to most of us anyway) is definitely overkill in my opinion. The only tricky part is how to pronounce "X," and here it suffices to add a comment that it's officially pronounced "ten." iNic 23:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The reasons why IPA is included has already been explained Nil Einne 11:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Vista Vs. OS X?

Hi, I thought an article Comparisons between Windows Vista and Mac OS X would be a good idea, so it would all be in one place. I'm posting this on Windows Vista as well, so any comments would be appreciated Shealer 15:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't sound necessarily encyclopedic. I did a tiny bit of Googling, found exactly 2 articles that compared shipping Vista to current OS X (10.4). If you feel like reading [3] and [4]

--Jason C.K. 08:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, however if not done very well, with mature people on both ends, POV could get out of hand. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If I may wade in here—I would strongly disagree with this proposal. As Nja247 pointed out, POV could become an issue, and considering the vitriol that already exists between (some) Mac and Windows users, such a section would only be adding fuel to the fire. And, in line with Jason C.K.'s comments, the Mac OS X page, I don't consider, would benefit much from this kind of comparison. Surely the best function of this page is to present Mac OS X for what it is, on its own merits, and not in constant comparison with another? --Walafrid 11:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Have a Linux user write the article :D 76.180.120.161 21:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold

There are still some citations missing. Also, if it's possible to find references outside of Apple for the information attributed to them, I'd highly recommend doing so. The Prominent Features section should be expressed inline instead of with a list (possibly merged with the Description section) and rigorously examined to conform to NPOV. The points outlined in Criticisms would be better expressed using of broader language and integrated into their corresponding portions of the article. The current Criticisms section seems like more of a Prominent Critics section than a general view and could certainly stand to be rewritten. Noclip 18:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't you need to be on the list of participants to review articles for GA status? I just checked and you were not on the list. Also, Inline citations are not mandatory according to the criteria. I agree with the primary sources thing. Sources not from Apple should not be used unless absolutely neccessary. Prominent features is fine as a list I think. There is no reason to merge Prominent features with description either. I see no problems with the language in critism, though I agree with the "Prominent Critics" comment. Honestly reading some parts of your GA review made me feel like you were reviewing an Article for FA criteria. In my opinion all that needs to be improved are the References and Criticisms sections. Also, I already am on the GA review list of participants. This article will remain on hold. Funpika 03:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, you don't actually need to be on that list. It just says if you're doing a lot of reviews you may want to add yourself to it. The only requisite is that active editors for particular articles should not review it, due to the conflicting interests. With that said, I agree with your comments Funpika, and I believe the general criteria for a good article have been meant, though may be not for a "A" article or "FA" (see Wikipedia assessment guide). Nja247 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There also need to be more in-line citations. Jolb 02:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

In-line citations are not mandatory for a Good article. Funpika 00:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Pronounciation, pt II

Re: "Mac OS X (official IPA pronunciation: /mæk.oʊ.ɛs.tɛn/)" -- I just read through the discussion / argument above, but I'm still confused as to officialdom of the pronounciation. If Steve Jobs or some other Apple Poobah has said so (and I'm not saying they haven't), I suppose I can buy that the offical version is Mac OS X "/mæk.oʊ.ɛs.tɛn/", but I've heard at least a few dyed-in-wool Apple fans insist (and I was persuaded) that even though it's typically pronounced "OS Ten," it *should* be pronounced "Oh Ess Ex" (sorry, I don't know IPA spelling ...)

Otherwise, the version numbers don't really seem to make sense; Mac OS X 10.4 wouldn't really be "Mac OS Ten, version ten point four," would it?

Granted, this all boils down to Apple's marketing and idiosyncratic preferences, and it wouldn't be the weirdest or least defensible naming decision in the history of man if we really are supposed to say version 10 point four of Mac OS 10, but it still rankles; that would imply it was the 10th major / 4th minor revision *of* OS X.

Perhaps this has all been definitively hashed out before, but I don't see it in these talk pages if so. timbo 04:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's my take on it: despite what any Apple fan my have said, every Apple employee I've ever heard say the name has pronounced the X as "ten." There may be counterexamples, but I've never come across any. As far as I know, no Apple "Poobah" has never explicitly said "pronounce it as ten," but they have led by example.

It's true that the version numbers don't make much sense in that case, except if you consider the "X" to be part of the product name rather than the version number. MFNickster 04:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Your dyed-in-the-wool Apple fans are wrong. Simple as that. Apple has been extremely consistent in pronouncing the X as "ten" over the last eight years. We don't call it "Superbowl Ex Ell Eye", do we? No, because we know it's a roman numeral representing a number: 41. It's the same deal with Mac OS X. You can even type "Mac OS X" into the text-to-speech converter and it pronounces the X as "ten", which is a pretty clear case of a manual override. I've always suspected that Apple started emphasising the big cat names around & after 10.2 because of the linguistic speed-bump of saying "Mac Oh Ess Ten Ten Point Two". -/- Warren 04:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought the source I added was clear. Here [5] Dravick 06:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a Poobah's name on that. :) MFNickster 06:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Quote : "The current version of Mac OS is Mac OS X (pronounced "Mac O-S ten")." Dravick 02:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks -- OK, OK, I give :) I do find it an annoying choice, but not a biggie on the scale of tragic world events. (Not annoying that it should be pronounced "Oh ess ten", which does make sense in that it's a Roman numeral, but annoying in that the 10 is OS X and the 10 in 10.4 or other version number are repeated in close sequence if one names the full, detailed version of the OS, even though referring to the same thing.) Why didn't Apple go with a convention like "Mac OS X 6" .. ah, well ;) timbo 20:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I would say that to pronounce "Mac OS X 10.4" You would say "Mac Oh Ess Ten Point Four." Because the "X" really does refer to the version number and the point 4 is just an upgrade. Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 03:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Passed

I have gone over the GA criteria and this article multiple times, and have decided that this article is currently meeting GA criteria. Congratulations! Funpika 01:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

64-bit?

I see Warrens removed the tag for Intel 64 as a supported platform. Isn't the Mac Pro 64-bit Intel? The Xeon 5100 inside runs EM64T. MFNickster 15:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Mac OS X is still a 32-bit operating system with some 64-bit libraries. More here: http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/4 AlistairMcMillan 17:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, but doesn't the fact that it runs an an "Intel 64" machine made by Apple make it a "supported platform"? MFNickster 18:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. AlistairMcMillan 21:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I think that's the first one I've made in months. :) MFNickster 21:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Mac OS X 10.4 doesn't use any of the 64-bit features as part of the core operating system itself; that's why I removed Intel 64 from the list. Ehh, whatever, it doesn't really matter since in a few months there will, in theory, be a fully 64-bit version of OS X. -/- Warren 12:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The kernel doesn't itself use 64-bit features for efficiency, and to avoid supporting multiple variants of the kernel; it certainly supports 64-bit processors. We did the the same thing for 64-bit PowerPC, and for the same reasons. Basing "supported platform" on which flags are used to compile the kernel seems like kind of a stretch... Stan 14:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not just the kernel, it's the entire OS stack from drivers up to the end-user applications. It's all 32-bit in Tiger. The distinction is between "supported platforms to run applications on" and "supported platforms that the OS is built for". These are two different things. The semantics of the word "supported" and the word "platform" are tricky; technically speaking, OS X can run on AMD systems as well, but it's not "supported by Apple", so I guess mentioning it is out. Oh, and, does 64-bit mean "64-bit addressing", "64-bit code execution", or both?

In short, there's no one right answer to any of this. Like I said, this is all a moot point when a 64-bit version of OS X comes out, which is apparently pretty soon... -/- Warren 20:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As Stan Shebs notes, the kernel runs as 32-bit code, but that doesn't prevent it from supporting 64-bit user-mode code on PPC64 or x86-64. Tiger's support for 64-bit user-mode code is very limited (you can't use any libraries other than libSystem - no OS X frameworks, and not even any open-source-based UN*X libraries), but it's not absent. I'm not sure what qualifies as "the core operating system", but I'd consider libSystem a relevant component of system software. Guy Harris 20:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Didn't I just say that. :) Anyway as MFNickster pointed out, this attribute is called "Supported platforms". Since Apple sell x86-64 systems, then x86-64 is a supported platform. AlistairMcMillan 20:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Now hang on a minute! We're mentioning Intel platforms twice (32-bit and 64-bit), but we're only mentioning PPC once, even though technically there are two platforms supported here as well (32-bit PPC74x/75x/74xx and 64-bit PPC970). What's the rationale for this? -/- Warren 20:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you see me arguing that the list of platforms shouldn't give both PPC and PPC64? If so, then you're seeing something that isn't there. I'd say that PPC and PPC64 should both be listed. Guy Harris 23:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd support that seeing as Ppc64 has its own article, thin as it may be at the moment. MFNickster 03:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Logo

There is a discussion ongoing at User talk:HereToHelp#Your edit. Just in case anyone else wants to butt in. :) AlistairMcMillan 05:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added a logo banner for the article (Image:Tigerbanner.png), I believe it makes sense, displaying the only attributable logo for OS X (the metal "X") and a standard Apple typeface. This banner brings this article's infobox into line with other OS articles such as Windows Vista and Ubuntu. So please don't nuke it without good cause, and if you need to, at least replace it with something better. Aanhorn 21:33, 26 April 2007

You can't just create a logo. Note that with the two examples you cited above the actual images were taken from microsoft.com and ubuntu.com and uploaded to Wikipedia with only very very minor cosmetic or format changes. You can't take an image and some text, slap them together and say "this is the mac os x logo".

And every version of Mac OS X has a different version of the big X image. The big X you posted is the Tiger version. This article is about all the versions, not just Tiger.

There is no desperate need for this article to have a logo, just because the Vista and Ubuntu articles do. AlistairMcMillan 02:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Generic OS X Logo

Hi. I noticed that you said Apple uses the logos for 10.4 and 10.5 to officially represent Mac OS X. I'm thinking that this is probably due to the fact that these are the current/future versions, but I'm not sure. Can you please point me to a place where Apple represents OS X (not in reference to the current version or Leopard) with the X for 10.4 or 10.5? I believe that the main logo for OS X is actually the blue-glass one used for 10.0 and 10.1. Let me explain my reasoning. For one, if you go by the most recent version, you would actually have to choose between the logos for 10.4 and 10.5. Also, the blue-glass "X" was the first to represent OS X. Subsequent versions differed in their specific X for that version, just like they use different codenames, so as to differentiate the versions. However, the original blue-glass X is still used by Mac. Do a spotlight search on your Mac for "mac" (or "logo" or something, I forgot how I found the blue-x from my mac actually). You should see at least one (maybe several) blue-glass "X" gif. Also, open your home folder, and then open Sites. Index.html is a sample website, displaying the blue-glass X. Right-click that and press properties. You will see that Mac calls it the "Mac OS X logo" (even though I'm running Tiger). I'll let you decide, but I think that actually the blue-glass logo would be appropriate for the Mac OS X article, since that article is not specifically about the most recent version of OS X, but rather the general group of operating systems. Althepal 18:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW: would you be able to remove the background from the logo for Tiger, as well? Althepal 18:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Althepal 01:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, the "System" folder icon appears as a blue-glass X upon a folder icon. Althepal 05:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Earlier this week I sent the following email to Anuj Nayar, press contact for Mac OS X at Apple Inc:

"There has been some confusion amongst editors of the Wikipedia article for Mac OS X regarding the current, generic Mac OS X logo. The most recent release of OS X, 10.4 "Tiger", includes an index.html file in the 'Sites' folder of each user account, regarding Personal Web Sharing. On this page the specific logo for 10.1 is featured, and is named "macosxlogo.gif". Are we therefore right to assume that this blue-glass logo is representative of Mac OS X as a collective range of all 6 releases? If not, should the logo featured on the Mac OS X article be that of the latest release(s), Tiger or Leopard? Your help is much appreciated."

I received the following reply today, 30 July 2007:

"There is no generic Mac OS X logo. I advise you to use the logo of the currently shipping OS, Mac OS X Tiger."

Accordingly I have updated the main OS X article's logo to that of Mac OS X Tiger. As soon as OS X Leopard is shipping it will be necessary to change it to the Leopard logo. Jack The Hat 23:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I will accept this, and I appreciate the research done. I'm still confused as to why Apple predominantly uses the 10.1 logo in logos and graphics which ship with current Macs. Althepal 01:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Dock criticisms

How many of you actually use Mac OS X? Currently the article reads In some cases, this makes it impossible to distinguish between different documents from the same application without moving the mouse pointer over the icons, as they only show their parent application's icon. The parent application's icon? What the hell is that? They show the same icon as they show in the Finder. If that icon has been customized, they'll show that icon. If you've changed your file open settings so that all .PNG files open with Preview, including those created with Photoshop, it will show the Preview icon, despite Photoshop being its "parent" application. My wording, which has since been removed, addresses this correctly: Files added to the Dock have the same icons as they do in the Finder, making them impossible to distinguish (without mousing over them to find out their filenames) unless the icon has been customized prior to the file's addition to the Dock. I'm not going to enter into an edit war, but honestly people, if you don't have Mac, don't edit this, and if you do, actually try it on your machine. —lensovet–talk – 18:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please look at the screenshot, where does the Word document icon come from? Obviously I'll defer to your greater knowledge being that you are a Mac user and I've never even seen a Mac, but I thought the document icons came from the Word.app bundle. But hey what do I know? AlistairMcMillan 19:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the icon (by default, though it can be changed) is assigned by Microsoft Word, but it is not the same as Word's icon - i.e. the icon that the Application itself has, which the current wording seems to imply. I'll try tweaking. --Scott Wilson 19:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Now the wording seems to imply that the icon is the same as Finder's, i.e. the smiley face. MFNickster 19:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you're saying. I've had another stab at it, though; it implied that the dock always showed the default icon. Nonetheless, I'm still not happy with it - it sounds rather awkward. --Scott Wilson 22:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a good thing to try to improve a section, but it is even better to try it after reading the source article (in that case, Togazzini's website). Wording might have been unclear, but we are not morons who likes to bash Mac OS X because w3 rU11333zzzz 0n 0uR 1337 W1nD0Z B0XX. I mean we all use Mac OS X daily, but it isn't perfect. Dravick 21:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I did read the article, and I did look at the screenshot. Both are misleading. First off, again, no one explained the concept of a parent application. Again, the icon is simply the same as is displayed in the Finder for that file (and folders too, btw). That is all. If I have my word files opening in Pages, it will be different. If I right-click a file, choose Get Info, and paste the picture of my cat in place of the current icon, then the dock icon will have a cat. Is this really that hard to understand? —lensovet–talk – 23:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay "parent" might be a bad word, if you have a better one please suggest it. By default, when you save a document from Microsoft Word, an icon is associated with the document. That icon comes from within the Word.app bundle. I don't have Word installed here but I'm sure you'll find it in something like "/Applications/Microsoft Word.app/Contents/Resources/Word.icns". The icon is not "associated with the file by the Finder", it is associated with the file initially by the application saving the file and then by LaunchServices, not the Finder. The Finder then uses this information and can change this information, but it just uses the LaunchServices database like every other application.

And no one is saying you can't change the icon. The simple fact is that by default this is the situation you are left with. And honestly how many people do you really think go and assign different icons to all their Word documents? AlistairMcMillan 01:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that's still wrong. I can't suggest a better word cause I'm not buying your concept. My apologies for suggesting the Finder does something; you're right, it simply displays the information that's there. Regardless, the simple fact is that for all images created in Photoshop on my account, they will have Preview's icon, NOT Photoshop's, because I set it that way. To take your Word example, if Pages is my default application for opening Word files and I create a Word document with TextEdit, or Word, or any other program, they'll take the Pages icon and not the Word icon. And it really doesn't matter where the icon is located (nor is there a "standard" way of assigning icons to files from their creators). —lensovet–talk – 07:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No one cares whether it's all photoshop's icon or preview's, the fact is that when you put them in the Dock they're all the same, if they are the same file type, and you can't see the difference without your mouse over them. Dravick 12:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly "...because I set it that way." Which is why we have the "...unless the user has modified it..." bit. AlistairMcMillan 15:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that this page is not a discussion forum. Let's keep the focus on improving the article by sourcing material published in reliable sources and describing the significant viewpoints about this subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless you minimize a document, it will not appear as a separate icon in the dock. It will appear under the icon for that program, which can be found by right-clicking it. If you minimize a document, you can see its name by rolling the mouse over it. It's not perfect, but it's not terrible either, and it does look more aesthetic than the taskbar in Windows. Althepal 18:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"second quarter 2007"

The stated release date of Leopard is "Spring 2007", not "second quarter 2007". I realise the Southern Hemipshere issue, but that's no excuse to introduce an outright factual inaccuracy. --82.45.163.4 18:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous-- if Jobs said "Spring 2007" without elaborating, just report that. People can figure it out. There's no need for us to second-guess or explain on Apple's behalf. MFNickster 20:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again "second quarter" is materially different from "Spring". One has fixed boundaries, the other doesn't. Please stop putting words in Steve's mouth. --82.45.163.4 16:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed (don't know if you're replying to me, but that's what I was trying to say) MFNickster 17:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Apple TV OS

I restored the section on the Apple TV OS, as it is quite clearly OS X from numerous reports around the web. People have taken out the hard drive and mounted it to confirm this fact. I initially linked to the Something Awful forums as it was there that most of the initial information was posted. I have also added a direct link to Walt Mossberg's review of the Apple TV, where he also confirms the Apple TV runs a modified version of OS X. I forgot to sign in first, so the readd shows as my IP. Drakino 04:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

As a rule we don't cite forum postings as sources. I'm not really sure what to do about this, but I know I don't like it the way it is now. It is quite clearly not branded as Mac OS X. But then I don't think we need a whole article called "Apple TV OS". I'm thinking we should have something like "Apple use specially customised versions of Mac OS X on some of their consumer devices, such as the Apple TV and iPhone." in the intro somewhere.

What the hell, I've made the change. Be WP:BOLD right. I'm sure if it pisses someone off they'll revert. AlistairMcMillan 06:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I had added it mostly due to the iPhone also having a specific entry. The note about it and link to the Apple TV page is also fine, since most of the article here covers the features and info about the desktop OS. Windows CE is separate from the desktop Windows entries, might as well do the same here. Drakino 02:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Installing on a PC

I was with some friends and they were talking about (illegally) being able to install Mac OS X on a PC like a Dell. I thought that was very interesting, is that very widespread, does it deserve a mention in the article? Timan123 11:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not very widespread and it is already mentioned briefly in the article (at the end of the Hardware section). AlistairMcMillan 12:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Mac vs Macintosh

There seems to be some confusion about what to call this computer. Is it Macintosh or simply Mac? We have Mac in Mac OS and iMac, but does that mean the original name Macintosh is dead? I haven't read or heard that and would like to have a reference to when that name was killed if this is the case. iNic 09:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Mac and Macintosh are both trademarks of Apple, Inc. You can safely assume that "Mac" is short for "Macintosh," though it's best to leave product names exactly as Apple uses them. "Mac Mini" and "Mac Pro" are official names, but they are both computers in the Macintosh line. MFNickster 19:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I don’t remember the last time I heard Apple use the name “Macintosh”. I think the full name may have been deprecated, and echo the request for a reference. —Frungi 04:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind—a discussion on pronunciation (ten vs eks) caught my eye, and Dravick referenced this Knowledge Base article (dated July 2004, last modified a year after) that says “Macintosh” twice. Two years is recent enough for me to not consider the name dead yet. —Frungi 04:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox screenshot not in web resolution

The current infobox screenshot is not sized at a web resolution. It had been downscaled at least once, but the most recent change is at original over-1000-px resolution. -BStarky 17:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Downscaled. Dravick 18:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

apple has just released some more information about mac os x leopard at the WWDC, but the sub article has not been updated 59.183.178.56 06:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)