Talk:macOS/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 → Archive 15

Hack your G3?

In my opinion, this sounds like a guide for geeks who like home-made computer modifications. I moved it here for the moment. I guess it could be put back in the article with one or more references. Dravick (talk) 05:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

A few early adopters experienced a surprise: Mac OS X was supported on Mac OS machines that came with a G3 or later processor from the factory—not machines with third-party processor cards. For example, a Power Mac 7300 whose CPU chip failed could be easily upgraded with a G3 processor on a "daughter card," which often cost nearly the same as an exact replacement of the original chip. The user could then go to the same store and buy the Mac OS X upgrade on CD-ROM. This is not guaranteed to work, however.

does mac os x work with non-MAC pc

is there any solution to work with mac os x in non-mac pc. if so, how to install it on non-mac pc.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.67.4 (talk) 16:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

See OSx86. I think it's not exactly legal. Dravick (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

A lot of work still needs to be done to reach FA, but I'm pretty sure it's at least a good article as it is. Matters from the previous GA-delisting have been addressed. Obviously I can't review it myself, so I'm calling for a review. Dravick (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. I was considering re-nominating it soon myself. Let's get it passed. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Architecture

Hmm, I must say I am unconvinced by this new "architecture" section. Basically, just putting the non-free drawing from apple website would be the best way to show the architecture, but because we can't really do that we copy each line in a list? I'm sceptical that this is the way to go. For one thing, it would be much better if translated to prose, but even then it is my opinion that this information is not interesting enough to be there. Of course, that does not mean that it should be like that, so I would feel bad to remove it althogether. My motivation is that some day after much work, this article will become a FA. What are your thoughts about it? Dravick (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. There is already an Architecture of Mac OS X article linked. MFNickster (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Hi. I'll be reviewing this article. It's only fair to warn you now that all my personal computer experience has been with IBM-compatible running MS-DOS and various Windows versions. That may cause me to raise some comments / questions that look strange to Mac afficionados, but hey, most readers use Windows, and if this article explains things more clearly to them you might make some converts.

I usually look at "high-level" issues such as structure and coverage, then at the nitty-gritty, and finallly at the lead, when all main content issues have been resolved. --Philcha (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Coverage

Overall I think the article is too tech-oriented (but not enough for real developers) and too eager to feature Apple's cool names for various system components. OTOH I think some significant topics are not covered.

  • Most of the release history, i.e. most of section "Versions", should go in the "main" article History of Mac OS X. Mac OS X is big enough anyway, and there are things I think it needs to cover.
I would prefer to see, minimally, the list of the numeric versions together with the common versions. Ie: 10.5 Leopard, 10.6 Snow Leopard for a quick reference.Rawlogic (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done The "Architecture" section does nothing for me at all. My feeling is that Mac-oriented developers won't need it and non-developers won't care. The discussion at Talk:Mac_OS_X#Architecture points the same way.
As I though. Nuked. Dravick (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that in-depth technical details should be left out, but we should at least hint at some of the underlying design, such as the list of layers that I provided. The list is very easy to understand and explains a great deal to both developers and the end user.Rawlogic (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • There's nothing at all about the competitive success or otherwise of Mac OS X in the desktop/laptop and server markets. I guess the main competition are Windows (main attraction is lots of apps) and Linux (free).
I'll try to do that. However, I do not really know where to put all of that as of now, so in the meantime I'll throw everything in "Description". I'll probably create a new section afterwards. Dravick (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I would leave this out. This would go under a more general category such as operating systems. Where would the comparisons end?Rawlogic (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
"Where would the comparisons end?" is not a great question. For personal computers, Windows is dominant, Mac OS second by along way, Linux has barely enough users to be notcieable, and the rest are nowhere. For servers, it's Linux, other Unix brands, Windows and Mac. --Philcha (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Seeing the mention of Xcode made me realise there's nothing about pricing options and "trim levels" of the type so well known to Windows users. In the Windows world I'd expect developer tools to be priced separately.
Well, Apple released their developer tools for free, so a copy with or without them is the same price. Dravick (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
TANSTAAFL. The bundling of developer tools simply means that their cost is partly / mainly paid by non-developer users, which is not a good deal for them. If you can't find Mac-specific sources for this, try Googling for "cost bundled software app application program" - unless of course you can show that both development and support / maintenance of developer tools cost Apple nothing. --Philcha (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Well I would say Xcode is on par with gcc and the "linux developer tools" (e.g. code::blocks, etc.); that is, they are free for everyone. Of course, gcc must have generated some expenses when developed, but it's still free for everyone. Dravick (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The applications that you wish to run decide the OS that you will install. Microsoft has free developer tools now (Visual Studio Express), perhaps to counter the fact that Mac is gaining ground due to an always free Xcode. Apple Developer Connection (ADC) memberships come in different flavors.Rawlogic (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I think you've just supported the point about the importance of apps. --Philcha (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Nothing about price / performance comparisons. I think this is significant because that was the original Mac's Achilles heel - in the 1980s it was seen as user-friendly but too expensive to be a practical business tool; that led to a shortage of apps, as developers did not think the Mac was a good bet; and the Mac was rescued from oblivion by DTP, especially by Quark Express. Yes, I realise that's partly a hardware issue. However the original Mac, although having a more powerful processor than most PCs of the time, was slow because the GUI used so much system resource.
There used to be a mention of retail price. Someone added a price in USD, then someone else thought it was unfair and added a price in CAD, then GBP, and so on. We ended up with a huge table of prices that was very unencyclopedic and mostly ininteresting. Dravick (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
There's no need for every currency. I'd limit it to $US, Euro and £UK, as these are the main international trading currencies - you couldJapanese Yen.
More seriously, the 1980s problem was that for a given total spend (hardware and software) you got a lot more useful performance (e.g. on big spreadsheets) from an MS-DOS PC than from a Mac. See #Some sources I found from Google. --Philcha (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Well I disagree for price listing. It ended being a big issue, whereas the actual usefulness of that information is quite limited. And someone who wants to buy it will most certainly go to the apple website instead of wikipedia. Dravick (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Dravick. Pricing information is hard to keep up to date. Also, performance is so subjective that it should not be included. As Mac OS X 10.6 will be stricly Intel processors, this whole issue will become moot. In the end, you get what you pay for. Desktop publishing is huge right now, regardless of platform, and the Adobe Suite runs on Windows and Mac.Rawlogic (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I do not agree that "performance is so subjective that it should not be included". You can argue about the choice of benchmarks, but their results are numbers, not at all subjective. Linux users would probably disagree with "In the end, you get what you pay for." --Philcha (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I thought we were talking about hardware. Benchmarks are not subjective, certainly. However, you'll need to compare Intel vs. Intel and test implementations of standard technologies like Java and OpenGL. Which vendor has implemented the technology in a faster/more efficient/less resource intensive way on identical hardware? Besides commonly implemented third party standards and technologies, you would always be comparing apples and oranges, and hence, always subjective.Rawlogic (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
No, benchmarks are not subjective. I would admit they may not be neutral, but users don't care about that, they care about bang for the buck --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Nothing about security, especially against malware on the Internet - which is famously a big issue with Windows. Is Mac OS X inherently more secure, or it simply a less attractive target to perpetrators because of its smaller market share?
In my opinion, the reason is that security is just not a concern for most people using Mac OS X. I would say that smaller market share does make it less attractive, but conversely mac people boasting about absolute security of the mac should make it more attractive. I think Mac OS X is inherently more secure than Windows, but we should definitely be very careful to source our claims with reputable people if we talk about it in the article. Dravick (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
That's a very doubtful claim, see #Some sources I found from Google. --Philcha (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree. That is _my_ opinion, and that's why it is not written in the article. Dravick (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Most of the issue with Windows operating systems was the fact that users logged in, and therefore ran, most applications as the administrator. In fact, before NT, there was no choice to do anything but. With Vista, finally, applications run in least priviledged mode. Mac OS X, having a Unix core, defaults to the least priviledged paradigm. Badly written Windows software causes headaches for users who try to make the switch to Vista, whereas Mac OS X developers have never been able to be lazy, they just had to deal with the paradigm. So, Windows was easy to gain control of, and combined with the large market share, a very prime target.Rawlogic (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Do you have WP:RS to back that up? --Philcha (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I provided you wish some common knowledge and some terminology that you can google as a starting point. Also, I forgot to mention that Mac OS X is based on an open Unix core. The common thought is that open software is more secure due to peer review and development. Interestingly, some people are making names for themselves by reverse engineering (decompiling) Windows code, finding the bugs, and submitting the bugs to Microsoft and the rest of the world. Security by obscurity is weak. A little aside, to explain: The best crypto algorithms are the publicly publishes ones that have been tested by the community. Hide your key, not your algorithm. This is in effect the comparison between closed source such as Microsoft Windows and open source FreeBSD, on which Mac OS X is based.Rawlogic (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand your "I provided you wish some common knowledge and some terminology that you can google as a starting point." I'm not a newbie asking for information, I'm a GA reviewer who happens to be an experienced computer consultant. Your point that Win users should not run as admins is relevant, but the artcile needs an explanation of any significant security differences between Win and OS X, backed up by inline citations of WP:RS. --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Nothing about reliability - which is an issue in the server market, and even non-techie Windows users know the meaning of "blue screen". How many patches per year?
Same here, I would say it is not discussed because the mac equivalent (kernel panic) scarcely happens. For one, it's not been years since my last kernel panic, and i use Mac OS X every day for all my activities as a computer science undergraduate. Dravick (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
That's interesting and impressive, as your activities would have made you a candidate for IBM's Black Team. However see #Some sources I found from Google. --Philcha (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think my experience is particularly impressive. See [1]. And I don't get the reference to the black team. Dravick (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Things are different with Vista, so while Mac OS X may be reliable, I would skip the comparison. Vista now has the Black Screen of Death, but the main feature here is the fact that drivers run in the OS kernel on Mac and drivers run outside of the OS kernel on Windows (between the hardware and the OS). A bad driver can take down a Windows PC, even with Vista, whereas it will not take down Mac OS X, except for hogging resources. Vista's answer for x64 versions is to require all drivers to be signed (a stamp of approval by the developer and Microsoft).
Do you have WP:RS to back that up? --Philcha (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
As a cross platform developer, this is common knowlege, and also a starting point if you'd like to find references.Rawlogic (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
As the vast majority of WP readers are not cross platform developers, your "common knowlege" is contrary to WP:V - you need to cite WP:RS Although I've worked with computers for decades, it's unclear to me how OS X' having the drivers within the kernel is an advantage in this context - I'd have thought it would be more secure to place drivers, which are produced under time-pressure to sell add-ons, and perhaps by outsiders, in a sandbox at a lower authorisation level than dispatching (selecting which task to run next) and both virtual and real memory manangement. --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Nothing about whether non-Apple cards and peripherals can be added. The original Mac was was criticised for being "closed" (Apple components only) compared with the IBM PC. However third-party device drivers are now blamed for some Windows instabilities and security issues.
Good point. I wouldn't know what to say though. Dravick (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
So get Googling. --Philcha (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
The issue is more that this is not a subject that interests me. If someone else wants to do that, fine. Dravick (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Third party devices and cards can be added. Macintosh provides detailed instructions for driver development, even down to PCI and PCI-X interfaces.Rawlogic (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
That's a good start. Are there any notable non-Apple cards and / or peripherals? --Philcha (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The article includes criticisms of the usability of various Mac OS X features (notably Aqua), but no comparisons of its usability with other pc OSs.
In my experience, comparisons with other OSs always degenerated and were removed. Dravick (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
By "always degenerated and were removed" do you mean edit wars? WP:V and WP:RS are usually a good opening move, and after a couple of rounds you start thinking about a reference to WP:ANI for WP:DE.
See #Some sources I found from Google. --Philcha (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, it is my opinion that comparisons between OSs are a bad idea. If someone else want to do something with that, I don't mind again. See here as an example. There used to be a mac vs windows page too, but was deleted here. Dravick (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Is the critique of Aqua actually notable?Rawlogic (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
In the WP:NOABILITY sense, yes, as it was written by a recognised usability expert. Whether it's important enough to warrant much space now that Aqua has been supersed is a separate question. --Philcha (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Nothing about email apps and very little about web browsers - as far as I can see Safari get only a few passing mentions in section "Versions", and nothing about alternatives or pre-Safari browsers (Safari was introduced in 2003 with OS X 10.3).
  • In fact very little about apps at all, e.g. the words "spreadsheet", "word processor" and "game" do not appear at all. Let's face it, apps are what sell computers.
So, what are the popular apps on Mac OS X? What apps sell the Mac? I believe that iMovie and Final Cut sell Macs.Rawlogic (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:RS? --Philcha (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Nothing about ability to inter-operate with Windows and Unix / Linux machines. OK, I'd expect email and the Web to be no problem, as these are governed by global standards - but does it work out in practice? And what about exchanging "spreadsheet" and / or "word processor" files?
I think as of 2009 this is mostly a non-issue. I would argue it is as hard to exchange a spreadsheet between two computers with different versions of windows as it is to exchange between a mac and a pc, or mac/linux, or any combination. Some problems arises sometimes, but if standards are followed it works. Dravick (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree - file sharing is no big problem for Win users as they can e.g. make Excel etc. save in the formats of earlier versions, and I always save WP files as .RTF to avoid both version compatibility issues and macro viruses. Users of other OSs have a different and larger problem - how do they share files (both produce and accept) with the much more numerous Win users? --Philcha (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
They do the same thing... they save in the right excel format using openoffice or microsoft office for mac or really any other software (or in RTF, for that matter), and then send it to windows users with the same method (email, SMB, ftp, http, whatever). The point is, it might be very easy to share stuff between different versions of windows, but it is as easy to do the same between linux and windows or mac and windows, at least in the present. Maybe it used to be different. Dravick (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Dravick. File formats are not much of an issue. Many formats, even if proprietary, are well documented. Microsoft formats are not, but OpenOffice seems to manage. TCP/IP is platform independent. Macs at the office can browse my file shares, and vice versa.Rawlogic (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:RS? --Philcha (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It is my opinion that most of those subjects are not covered because they are not really issues, and as such, it is just not really discussed by reliable sources. It would be interesting if someone found such a source, though. On the other hand, in my experience adding comparisons between operating systems has always been a bad idea, leading to much edit wars. Dravick (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, see comments above and #Some sources I found from Google.
You probably think I'm being a real hard bastard. If it's any comfort, I apply the same standards of coverage to articles I work on, see for example Paleontology, Arthropod, Sponge, Alexander Alekhine, Wilhelm Steinitz. When I reviewed Sperm Whale, I made the article's supporters work pretty hard but also helped as much as a reviewer is allowed to, and they were really pleased with the outcome. --Philcha (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I still think I am mostly right. Of course, I also think that my opinion should not make its way into the article; there should be reliable sources cited. And no, I do not think that you are a hard bastard, I think the review process serves the purpose of the article being criticised so that it can be improved. And your criticisisms are much more precise than "too much text" and "not elaborate enough", which is really a good thing. On the other hand, I contributed to the article about subjects that interests me, so naturally we would need other contributors to complete the article. I will still try to implement some of the suggestions when I get a little free time. Dravick (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Agree that comparisons should mostly be avoided. Where do the comparisons end? The Mac OS X page shouldn't even know that Windows exists, except, perhaps, in a list of Alternative operating systems at the end of the article or a link back to the Operating systems page. What comparisons would be notable besides the appearance? Also open versus closed. I don't have to buy a PC from Microsoft to install the OS, I don't even need a PC. I can run Windows on a virtual server legally, but not Mac. I thought the versioning difference was also notable, especially with regards to updates. For example all updates for XP are free if you own XP. If you have Mac OS X, you can only get updates for your version of OS X (you have to pay to go from 10.4 to 10.5).Rawlogic (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
If you can provide WP:RS for "For example all updates for XP are free if you own XP. If you have Mac OS X, you can only get updates for your version of OS X (you have to pay to go from 10.4 to 10.5)" that's a very significant point about the pricing and therefore prospects of success in the mmarketplace. --Philcha (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Some sources I found from Google

I think these will help with the issues I raised above:

Has any editor of this article looked for this information? Here are some things I found fairly easily:

A hint: when starting a big project I start a "Sources" section in the article's Talk page, wiht sub-sections if needed. Each item has URL, title, date and a one-liner about why I thought it might be useful - see for example Talk:Evolutionary_history_of_life#Sources_and_snippets - but you shouldn't need anywhere near so many sources, as Evolutionary history of life is a monster by even my standards. --Philcha (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to discussion above

This article has tons of refs (which I haven't checked yet) and overall looks decently written. I'm a retired computer consultant and I should find this article interesting, but I don't - and not because I've lost interest in computer technology, in fact I've contributed to WP articles on the subject. I haven't used a Mac since 1991, and I'd like to know what using a modern Mac feel like and how it differs from the 32-bit Windows systems that I'm used to. But this article fails to answer the question, "Why should I care?" I think this is because it has major flaws in its perspective:

  • It ignores the fact that there are alternative platforms. In the real world, Windows appears to own the desktop and Unix (especially Linux) appears to own servers - in particular Linux+Apache seems to dominate the Web server market, especially in the LAMP (software bundle).
  • It ignores what matters to most users (in no particular order): availability of apps; price/performance ratio (TCO/performance for sophisticated users); ease of use, both normally and in installing new software and / or periperals; reliability; security.
  • It ignores Apple's marketing strategy for the OS. For example does Apple regard Mac OS X as a general-purpose platform or as a niche product or as a lifestyle / aesthetic product? How successful is this strategy? This may seem an odd question for an article about an OS, but it has a bearing on what I think is the main issue - how far this article should try to speak to readers who are not committed to Apple computers and related products.

While the article on Windows XP has a lot of deficiencies, it at least tries to address some of the issues that matter to people who are not techies and are not members of a fairly narrow in-group. The "narrow in-group" focus of the Mac OS X article is highlighted by the fact that the great majority of cited sources come from Apple Inc. or organizations committed to Apple products - which also gives me reservations about the objectivity of the article.

I hope that within the next few days someone will step up to bring this article closer to the real world. If that happens I will be as patient and helpful as possible. --Philcha (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King

I made a few edits to the article concerning the MOS. I removed the TOC limit per WP:ACCESS; also, frankly, if you feel that the TOC is too long, then the article needs to be better organized. Limitations should be embraced, not worked around. I also unbolded a bunch of bolded links per the MOS.

Regarding the many images in the "Versions" section, I'm not so sure that they pass as accepted non-free content. The images are more appropriate in their own articles—where they already are, so they should most likely be removed from this article. It would also help to remove all the whitespace between the sections, which at least for me I am seeing.

I agree. Done. Dravick (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The article can also still be organized better. The "Languages" section doesn't really do much; it could be merged into a single (long) sentence in somewhere like "Description". Gary King (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. I didn't want to include a incredibly long and boring sentence with all the languages, so I truncated the list from the source after 6. Anyone who wants to know more can follow the link IMO. Dravick (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I reorganized the article a bit; I think sections should be used only when necessary, not simply as an organizational tool to make it easier to edit, so that the text flows better. Again, embrace limitations; working with less sections means that you really need to think as an editor how to best organize the information, rather than sticking something that stands out into its own section. This makes for many small sections. Now, some more issues:

  • On another note, I've marked a few batches of text with the {{fact}} template as unreferenced; several paragraphs are also unreferenced, so they need to be cited. Please do so.
I see you have tagged the "finder criticism" and "dock criticism" sentences for fact. However, these references used to be there, but were moved in the respective article. So now I don't really know what to do, should I just copy-paste some (or all?) of the references from the linked article? Dravick (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't actually marking the criticism sentences but rather the descriptions of the Finder and Dock. I removed the criticism mention; I don't think they belong in this article. The Feature section should be light and be an overview of the features, not mulling over pros and cons, which should be left to other articles. Gary King (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind, but for the record, a criticism section was first added when the neutrality of the article was questioned. Then gradually they were moved to their respective articles (finder/dock), and now the last trace of it is being removed. Dravick (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Talk about the features in the "Features" section in a neutral manner then it shouldn't be a problem. Just describe what they do, not how good they do it. Gary King (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Some web references are missing access dates, which they need per WP:CITE/ES.
Done. Dravick (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me know when the needed references have been added. Gary King (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey all, a lot of recent copyedits and issues addressed. Reviewer, what's the overall status of this GAR? Cheers. Nja247 09:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
For starters, there are a few citation needed tags. Gary King (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
I am failing this nomination. It has gone on for a month and a half; the article has seen significant improvements since this review began, but the article still has some more major work to do. Please take your time to work on the issues mentioned, and renominate the article when you believe that it is ready. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Specious/redundant comments and comparisons

I found several items in this article that drew specious comparisons that I think should be cleaned up.

  • In the section "Description", the statement is made "Furthermore, while the market share of Mac OS X has been growing on average, its growth is slower than, for example, Windows Vista, both of which competes to replace Windows XP." Grammatical errors aside, comparing the rate that users upgrade Windows against overall growth-rate of an OS is specious. If a comparison is to be made, either compare overall OS marketshare vs. OS marketshare, or compare adoption of Vista from XP to OS X Leopard from Tiger. I propose this entire sentence be removed, but didn't want to do it without discussion.
Well, I agree with you, but it ended up there because of a request from GA reviewer Talk:Mac_OS_X/GA2, so I don't know what to say. Dravick (talk) 08:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I suggest the relevant comparison would be Win XP+Vista vs Mac OS (all versions), since release of OS X. --Philcha (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • In "The Finder", the statement "It has been the subject of some criticisms." is added, almost as an afterthought. I feel this is unnecessary -- what program is not "the subject of some criticism"? There's already a link to this article at the beginning of the line, there isn't a need for a second reference in the same. This does not add to our knowledge of Finder.
That was done to avoid a copy/paste of essentially the same information from the article it links to. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Same in "The Dock": "Like the Finder, the dock has had some usability criticisms." Redundant reference and doesn't add to the topic.
Same as above (avoiding repetitive information and to avoid making this article too long). Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah definitely both those sections need some attention. Dravick (talk) 08:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

--Alphaman (talk) 05:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Filesystem compatibility?

One thing lacking in many os X articles is a mention of, in spite of the os's *nix qualities and components, its lack of support for other *nix-y filesystems. To my knowledge OS X supports only HFS+, HFS (both journaled and non-journaled),UFS, AFP, ISO 9660, FAT(32), UDF, NFS, SMBFS, NTFS (read only), FTP, WebDAV and ZFS (read-only). With appications such as macFUSE it can deal with a few more "foreign" filesysems, but it still lacks support for XFS, ZFS, and many others. Worthy of mention here? THEPROMENADER 21:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think thats worth mentioning, though I've never even heard of XFS before... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Photographerguy (talk • contribs) 21:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Does this have any impact on its ability to share files with other systems, or is it just an internal matter of disk space maamnegement? --Philcha (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Not really. An inability to read/write, for example XFS or another format, is never really an issue. If the sharing occurs over a network the server can "translate" a foreign file system. Photographerguy (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure it is an issue. The only means that OS X has of using filesystems "foreign" to its own compatibilities is through either NFS mounts ("translation" left to the exporting sub-server-space, slow performance, no direct I/O possible with the sub-server) or macFuse (although faster because working in the client-space, with a sub-server I/O bypass possible, it has only a few "translations" available to date). This is a an extreme limitation for mac OS X server: it can only work at high-performance filesharing levels with "native" filesystems - or in other words, other xServes. THEPROMENADER 08:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
As always, if you find enough expert opinion that this is an issue, by all means add a mention of it, with appropriate references. Dravick (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but that doesn't really make sense. You are claiming that Mac OS X gets a performance hit while talking to servers that run filesystems that it doesn't support natively? When one server talks to another, what does the native filesystem have to do with anything? If you are transferring files from one machine to another, you are going to be using a protocol like NFS, SMB, AFP, etc. Not making native file system calls. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
If you consider the speed gains through using direct I/O transfer, a feature that is only possible between computers using the same filesystem, then yes, I would consider having to fall back to NFS a 'performance hit'. Some *nix filesystems are made for performance - XFS for large-volume files, for example - so there are speed/functionality gains to be had there, too. THEPROMENADER 07:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, if you are talking about direct I/O transfer as implemented in the AIX and Linux kernels, that has nothing to do with transferring files between computers. That is just about letting applications read/write files directly from a disk instead of the contents going through the kernel cache. Which is just as likely to cause a performance hit because with normal I/O there is a chance that the blocks you want are already in the cache. Or am I barking up the wrong tree and you are talking about something completely different? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, we seem to be getting into a techie discussion here rather than talking about the article ; ) Yes, I was talking about the internal I/O of both linked servers - through NFS, the transferred info has to go through two caches/CPU's (one on each server) instead of one, as the filesystem translation/transfer is not imported into userspace as it is using applications such as FUSE. I could point you to some benchmark sites if you like - I'm going to have to anyways if I want sources for the article. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 07:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
To get this into the article you need to point to someone who says the lack of XFS, ZFS write, etc is a detriment. BTW Are you sure that FUSE doesn't use F_NOCACHE (the Mac OS X equivalent of DIO)? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 13:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Let's just say that mac OS X has adopted a *nix-y system without the *nix filesystem compatibility. Yes, fuse uses the F_NOCACHE, but as long as the filesystem in question is importable to the userspace. THEPROMENADER 20:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
So the FUSE filesystems allow DIO. ZFS is available as a native filesystem for those that want it. The only one you've mentioned that doesn't seem to be available is XFS. Are there other filesystems? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes - I'll do the research and provide some sources before adding anything. There's already a good source here : Comparison_of_file_systems and here Comparison_of_operating_systems. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 06:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that Wikipedia articles can't be used as sources. And even though it looks like a lot of the content of the filesystem article is cited, it is actually just pointing to notes. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

iPhone OS subsection in Versions?

I think there should be a section about the iPhone OS in the Version section since the iPhone OS is based on Mac OS X. Yes/no? Photographerguy (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. From my point of view, we know nothing about it, else than "the iPhone runs OS X", to quote Steve Jobs. If you have some good references, then sure go ahead and add a section, but don't just add speculations without any sources. Dravick (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually there is quite an extensive article about the iPhone OS. That's why I'm thinking there should be some mention of it here, other than the see also section. It would be easy to add to - just a copy and paste with a little editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Photographerguy (talk • contribs) 22:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Done. Added a new section about the iPhone OS. Photographerguy (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
User_talk:AlistairMcMillan deleted the new section about the iPhone OS on the basis that it was copied and pasted from the Main iPhone OS article. What does everybody think about including this section? I obviously think it should be included, but I won't put it back until I can get some more input... Photographerguy (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
There's really no reason to have a section that simply summarises what's already said in another article. A simple link: Main article, or See also should suffice. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Possibly expand a little on the last paragraph of the intro (the one that starts "Apple also produces specialized versions of Mac OS X...") and link iPhone OS there. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually possibly an interesting section could be written on how the derivatives differ from Mac OS X. Mentioning that most of the backward-compatible stuff has been removed (Classic, Carbon UI, etc). Mentioning that each version has a specialised UI that is quite different from the Mac OS X UI. Something like that, maybe. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There is actually a lot of commentary to the contrary...

http://www.insanelymac.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t38231.html

http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/13/1746234--KelvinHOWiknerd(talk) 13:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry this isn't a debate on whether the iPhone runs some version of Mac OS X. We know it does. The debate is how much detail on the iPhone version do we want in the Mac OS X article. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Mac OS X refers to the desktop operating system, iPhone OS refers to the mobile operating system. It's like comparing it to Windows Mobile. You can't install a copy of Leopard on your iPhone, and you cant run a copy of iPhone OS X on your Mac, even though they're based on the same code. I heard that Apple is/wants to register "OS X". Maybe an article entitled "OS X" could be made, mentioning both "OS X"s? Because it doesn't really seem right to mention the iPhone's operating system here when Mac OS X always and only refers to the version which runs on Macs, and there exists an iPhone OS article. Then again, I suppose it can't hurt to add a section about the iPhone OS as being based on the Mac code? Althepal (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Please tell me if I'm wrong here, but the iPhone OS is not really running OS X because it's not running Darwin, which OS X is based on. Though legally speaking Apple is allowed to brand anything OS X --KelvinHOWiknerd(talk) 14:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but the iPhone OS is based on Darwin. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
And Althepal, what the hell are you talking about? They started with the Mac OS X code, you say yourself they are based on the same code. For gods sake, we already mention the iPhone OS in the Mac OS X article, that isn't the debate. The debate was, how much do we say about it? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, no more than a paragraph. Althepal (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Mac OS X market share comparison?

"Furthermore, while the growth of Mac OS X market share is slower than that of Windows Vista,"

I dispute the usage of Windows Vista for a comparison. Windows Vista is a version of Windows. Mac OS X is an operating system. The "growth" of Windows Vista should be called "adoption rate". When you want to compare, either compare Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard's adoption rate with that of Vista, or Mac OS X with Windows.--KelvinHOWiknerd(talk) 13:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. A comparison of raw numbers moving from XP is not fair, since people tend to upgrade within their OS (and the fact is that OS X is growing compared to Windows). Althepal (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

X is for...

The article currently states that the X stands for the Roman numeral 10. But doesn't the X also reflect the Unixoid architecture (like in similar OS'es as Linux, Aix, etc.) of OSX and was thus the reason to choose the Roman numeral "X" over "10"? -- megA (talk) 11:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Source? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
In the link I found a while ago it clearly states 'pronounced "Mac O-S ten"' (on apple site). That clears the debate on how to pronounce it. As of its meaning and philosophical reasons, wikipedia might not be the right place to speculate about that. Dravick (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Why not call it OS 10, then? (Makes you wonder if there will ever be a OS XI or OS 11?) Actually, I found the UniX thing on the German Wikipedia article, where it reads: "[Apart from the roman numeral, it] also follows the tradition of other Unix derivates, whose names almost exclusively end with an X, such as AIX, IRIX, A/UX, Sinix, HP-UX und Xenix."They don't cite any source, though. -- megA (talk) 13:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I would venture to say that they used the X instead of 10 because OS X was really completely different than OS 9, unlike OS 9 vs OS 8 for example. This is only my opinion, and that is the reason it does not end up in an encyclopedia. It is likely that it also has a relationship with the fact that it is a unix, but that's just speculation. Dravick (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Unless someone at Apple comes out and says something different than what has been said over the last nine years, then the correct answer is that the X represents the Roman numeral ten. Ideas along the lines of a relationship to standard practice in Unix operating system naming, or to the name of its predecessor (NextStep), or the pop-culture popularity of the letter at the time, or anything else is speculative. It's easy to picture Jobs, Schiller et al. sitting around a table brainstorming this one and using all of those things as a rationale for the choice of name... but unless someone pipes up about it, we're stuck with what we've got. Warren -talk- 02:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It officially stands for 10. That's what Apple says. However, I've always said it as "ex". Apple uses the letter X (and the term OS X) for a reason. Maybe it's to be cool, maybe it's for "unix". I think it started out as just a cool way of writing 10 and Apple was going to make Mac OS 11 after a few years (evidenced by the free minorish upgrade to version 10.1), but eventually it developed into its own family and it became (at least popularly) Mac OS ex. As something different, not just version 10 of Mac OS. I feel more strongly about this now with QuickTime X which is really version 8. We're not going to start calling this Quick Time Ten are we? To summarize, I think it kind of really is Mac OS EX but this is a fact-based encyclopedia and the official pronunciation is 10. How everybody says it is totally separate. Althepal (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"Human" language explanation

From User:AlistairMcMillan summary:

"As opposed to... Cylon languages, or dog languages, or what?"

I meant as opposed to programming language, which is the topic just before. Dravick (talk) 07:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"Should we lock this page?"

Should we lock the Mac OS X page? This is a very important page I mean the Windows 7 page is locked up from editing. I know that's the fear that some one might put something horrible about Windows but the same could be said for the Mac OS.

Locking is only for extreme persistent cases of vandalism. Right now there isn't the level of vandalism that would warrant locking the page. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Licensing

Is there any AT&T/Novell or CMU-copyrighted code still in the OS? If so, was a license purchased outright? If not, when was it purged? -- Beland (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There are a variety of copyright notices on the Mac OS X code. Most of them are pretty close to the BSD license (which is also present on a large number of files), in that the only condition is that the copyright notice is not removed. BTW You do know that the kernel code is available online. http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/Current/ AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
To answer your question exactly. CMU licenses all over the place. No Novell licenses. There are a few files with AT&T licenses, which have come to Mac OS X via Sun, relate to DTrace and were released under Sun's CDDL. So purchasing a license wasn't necessary. And purging wasn't necessary since Mach was released under an essentially "free" license. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Version images?

On February 8, User:Dravick removed the screenshot thumbnails of the various versions of Mac OS X (from public beta to Leopard). I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I always found the images and section breaks to make the article and history of OS X much easier to navigate and read. Who wants to stare at a plain old chunk of text? So I'm asking, do the rest of you want these images removed or restored? I say restore them. Althepal (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it was better with the images.Photographerguy (talk) 02:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That was done for GA evaluation. Actual message from GA reviewer:

"Regarding the many images in the "Versions" section, I'm not so sure that they pass as accepted non-free content. The images are more appropriate in their own articles—where they already are, so they should most likely be removed from this article. It would also help to remove all the whitespace between the sections, which at least for me I am seeing."

I think he is right, that's why I removed them. Dravick (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

How is it not fair use? It's in the better interest of the article to have the thumbnails. Althepal (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Ten or X?

Long Discussion on 'Ten or X'

Why is it that so many people are against even mentioning that many people say the letter X, instead of the number 10? I thought this was wikipedia, and we wanted to include as much information as possible, not exclude it.ZooCrewMan (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but that is a common misconception. The goal of Wikipedia is not to include as much information as possible. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to provide a summary, not explain every little detail. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is indeed meant to collect information from varied sources, but per WP:NOR: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments." So unless a notable publication has written something significant about the unofficial pronunciation, it falls under users' experiences, which are not encyclopedic. MFNickster (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Do I need a scholarly journal to cite if I were to say "some fire engines are painted red"? Or is it necessary to find an article somewhere that says most people in the United States sleep on a piece of furniture called a "bed"? Now, if I were making the claim that "Mac OS X is the best built, best functioning OS ever" I would need to back that up by an outside source. But on what people call the damned thing?!
Nobody is going to take the time to write and publish a work on how people pronounce the X in Mac OS X. You know, and I know, and everyone else in the english speaking world know, that many people pronounce the letter X and not the number 10.ZooCrewMan (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Fascinating. People mis-pronounce things. Who could'a guessed.
This has been discussed a number of times and each time it has resulted in that information being removed from the article. It's up to you how much more time you want to waste trying to insert this trivial little fact into the article. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Wow. Thanks for showing me the light. You're right... because it's a mis-pronunciation means it has no place on wikipedia. You're right, I shouldn't be wasting my time trying to include a very common variation of a name. Thank You so much for showing me that even-though something is very commonly said, that it's still wrong; and that I'm wrong for trying to include it!ZooCrewMan (talk) 00:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
It is trivial, but not really a big deal if included (to me anyhow). I myself call it X. Does it matter to me if it's in the article? No. But it wouldn't be the end of Wikipedia if it was. Nja247 00:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I hear this pronunciation often enough that it seems sufficiently notable for inclusion in the introduction. (Encyclopedias are descriptive and not prescriptive, after all.) I believe even Steve Jobs occasionally says /oʊ ɛs ɛks/. We're going to have some serious difficulty finding a reference documenting this variant, though. —Nima Khazaei (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe even Steve Jobs occasionally says /oʊ ɛs ɛks/. I would be very interested in seeing an example of that! MFNickster (talk) 06:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Me too, however generally there's no need to scour the net for an example to include a small line in the article, eg 'pronounced as X (versus 10) by some'. Nja247 10:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is a writer from CNET [2] if someone really really want a mention of it in the article. Dravick (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? A guy who admits it's a mistake, but says he's going to keep saying it that way just to annoy Apple fans? :) MFNickster (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Well I really could not care less about this issue, but if someone wants to mention that "some people pronounce blahblahblah" this would probably qualify as a source. Dravick (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The writer says nothing about it being a common mispronunciation. In any case, it needs to be notable in addition to being reliably sourced. Like AlistairMcMillan, I think it's trivial. —EqualRights (talk) 04:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
It would absolutely qualify as a source, though it's questionable whether one was really needed in this situation. The fact that he admits it was a mistake is perfect since the whole point of the very uncontroversial sentence that is trying to be added is to note it's incorrectly pronounced as the letter x by some. Also the fact that he doesn't say it's a common mispronunciation is irrelevant as we're not trying to prove that. The only thing trying to be demonstrated is that it is sometimes said incorrectly as the letter x, not 10. This is really being blown into a huge deal here and as it has come up so many times wouldn't it be nice to just add six new words to the article and be done with it? It'd be sad if this has to go through dispute resolution because a simple compromise cannot be reached. I propose: Mac OS X (pronounced /mæk oʊ ɛs tɛn/, though incorrectly by some as OS Eks).[1] Nja247 08:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I will argue pretty stringently against putting it anywhere near the first sentence of the article. As you keep pointing out, it's not that important. The lead is there to introduce the topic, not to document the variety of ways that people mispronounce the topic's name. The pronunciation issue is covered at the beginning of the Versions section of the article, which is fine. Warren -talk- 10:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
And so it is. Not sure how that was missed in this discussion. However, wouldn't it be nice to just have this recurrent discussion go away with just a handful of words straight away? Other elements of the intro are repeated, and obviously since this issue seems to always pop-up the current way things are in the article doesn't seem to be good enough. I say add a few words straight away and end it once and for all and just maybe we can concentrate on real issues and get this article GA again. This unmovable stance taken by some has created a situation that never seems to end and I think it's time for compromise or as an unfortunate last resort DR. Nja247 10:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
The text violates WP:WEASEL and still does not demonstrate notability. —EqualRights (talk) 11:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
What text are you speaking of? If you're speaking of my proposal, then you're blindly using guidelines to actually hurt the quality of Wikipedia, which is not what they're for. I believe it's notable enough that this is spoke of so damn much here and always bickered about. If it wasn't notable no one would bother. Plus we have a source showing people do mispronounce it. This article recently failed a GA re-assessment, yet it's so important to waste time over this (what amounts to clarifying an issue straight away in under ten words)! Many of the archives for this page contain a discussion on this very topic and it is time it is resolved through compromise since apparently the way it's been done is not working. If you're unhappy with my proposal then please suggest a new one that actually shows a compromise rather than sticking to the status quo which has failed. Blindly lawyering me about guidelines will be ineffective as what I'm looking for is compromise and consensus. Even the Simple English Wikipedians got it better: The "X" in Mac OS X, which is read aloud as "Mac Oh Ess Ten," comes from roman numerals. If we stuck that in the intro personally I think it'd be sorted and that extra bit stuck down way in the versions section can be chopped. Nja247 12:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
(Both texts.) And now it's time for the obligatory WP:AGF and WP:CALM reminders; neither of us has a monopoly on wishing to improve Wikipedia. —EqualRights (talk) 13:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This subject is fascinating. If we're going to mention that people incorrectly say "Mac OS Exs", I vote that we also mention that people frequently write the name wrongly as "Macintosh OS X", or "MacOS X", or "Mac OSX", or "MacOSX"... We could have a whole section listing all the wrong ways to pronounce or write the word. Oo, we could also mention that people sometimes forget the "v" in "Mac OS X v10.4"...

One we've solved this vexing issue I propose that we turn our attention to amending the Windows article to point out that Scottish people pronounce it "Windaes". AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, grow up. ZooCrewMan (talk) 02:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Or Italians who pronounce Vista with a hard E... yup, I've been through that argument, too. sigh... Warren -talk- 21:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Brown, Rich. "Apple OS X: You say OS Ten, I say OS Eks". c. Retrieved 2009-03-09. {{cite web}}: Text "net" ignored (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:MacOS/Archive_10&oldid=1158403221"