Talk:Mac OS X Snow Leopard/Archive 2

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mac OS X Leopard which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RFC bot 21:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

bugs
There is no way that occasional data loss is the *only* bug. I would call it a major bug, but in an OS, it's impossible that there can be only one bug.

Also, the first sentence of the section states that the bug has been fixed, but later on: "Apple has confirmed the bug and has been working on a fix,".

Someone want to clean this section up? Do we even *need* a "Bugs" section? 91.154.8.177 (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know who changed the section to say that it was the only bug. I have corrected the opening sentence... Yeah I don't know if we need a bugs section either. I mean there's always bugs with anything and they're always fixed. It's not like a significant amount of people had this problem, and it's not like it's going years before being fixed. I mean this bug did get some notability, so I'm not going to make a strong argument for its removal so long as the section doesn't mislead people. Althepal (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Who concurs with deleting the bugs section at this time? (Bugs section stands currently with one bug, fixed in 10.6.2).  It was worth including in the article at the time, but seems to no longer be notable.


 * Please, add your vote!!


 * suggest deletion of bugs section PolarYukon (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your calling of a vote seems rather premature. May I remind you that WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. --Cyber cobra (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Poll or discussion, I think that the bugs section can now be removed. I don't think there's any opposition to that, since this is no longer a "Snow Leopard bug" (since the bug does not apply to the current version). Some may say that a few, less notable bugs (some of which were probably already fixed too) should be included in the section (not me however), but in any event, there's nothing up there right now worth keeping. Althepal (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

MPEG2
Wasn't MPEG2 always a separate purchase? I'm sure I remember purchasing it before ages ago. Was it ever bundled with Mac OS X? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 01:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Always was a separate product, this page shows it is currently available for purchase for as earlier as 10.4.10 or Windows . PaleAqua (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Developer builds
I noticed people keep adding and removing the developer builds of Snow Leopard to the version history section. Please stop adding them. Info on developer builds isn't important, and if you were to actually list all the builds that you *don't* know about, the list would be hundreds of versions long. All that's important is what's released; progress between minor releases isn't important enough to take up this article's space. Althepal (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree, but it is futile to fight the apparent consensus on this. --Cyber cobra (talk) 03:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Althepal; listing out developer builds is not relevant to this article. PolarYukon (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Failing to see how development history could be straight-up irrelevant. I can understand concerns about undue weight or importance, but irrelevance, no. --Cyber cobra (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. I'm not seeing how its irrelevant, but its still extra information that most people would just scroll through.--Radiation warning symbol.svg 10:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, some builds are not released to the public and are not known. However, the entries being removed are developer builds that were released to the public and received wide coverage by the press. I don't see how the fact that there are builds that are not known to the public can be reason to not list the ones that were released to the public.—Tokek (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call it wide coverage. The sources were mostly from appleinsider, a site which pens itself as a rumor site. Regardless, this article is about the consumer product, not the process of making the software, putting in all the rumored builds places undue weight on them, let's try and keep the article concise and to the point.-- Terrillja talk  02:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. If it was truly "wide" coverage, we should be seeing citations.--Radiation warning symbol.svg 10:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As an alternate solution, would a separate article such as list of mac os x builds or mac os x development process make sense? would it meet the significancy requirements? PolarYukon (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Most Mac-centric news sites also pick up rumors. However, associating the word "rumor" seems to suggest the developer builds weren't released to the public. No, I'm referring to developer builds that were released to the public and are therefore verifiable non-rumors. Developer builds are notable facts as it describes a notable subject. Listing pre-final builds is not unheard of on Wikipedia. The list of builds for Snow Leopard is very short and does not require a separate article. Censoring them is going beyond being concise. If editors are willing to contribute to expanding the article, I think that's a plus.—Tokek (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ADC agreement terms part 6 "Confidentiality" states that development is considered confidential information. Part A does not apply in this case because apple is not releasing this information to the public and thus any information is by Apple's terms violating the agreement. I have no problems with including builds posted at download.apple.com, but these developer builds are confidential seeds and they are not being reported on by reliable sources since by providing seed information a developer risks losing their contract with apple or being sued. Microsoft is different in how they put out public betas and release candidates, anyone who has followed apple for a little bit knows how secretive they are, so the only people to tell about the testing are daring/foolish developers, and are in themselves unreliable sources. If apple ever started telling people when they are putting out developer builds, that would be fine, but I don't see that happening anytime soon (since it has negligible effect on the public anyways). I followed the top google result in your link and went to the original post on osxdaily, which had this line: "Popular Hackintosher StellaRola has confirmed this with his sources" Reliable? I'd say no. -- Terrillja  talk  03:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Multi-touch in older models
Does anyone have a reference for the claim that multi-touch works on older Apple laptops with Snow Leopard? It certainly doesn't seem to be the case with my 2006 MacBook Pro. 58.96.96.162 (talk) 02:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Citation added. Apple: "All Mac notebooks with Multi-Touch trackpads now support three- and four-finger gestures." --Cyber cobra (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing unreferenced content
I have noticed that the "Reception" section, among others, has a relatively large amount of unreferenced content for an article of such high importance. It seems as if contributers are using guessing and assumptions to fill in gaps in thier research. I have proposed that unless given opposition, I will remove any unreferenced material within 48 hours, unless it is widely considered to be general knowlege.

I hope no one sees this as a threat, but rather as a message that Wikipedia is a reputable encyclopedia that many people get day-to-day info from, and that no opinions or assumptions, unless significant and quoted, are featured as encyclopedic content.-- 10:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Added a couple of sources. Toned down some of the questionable language. Removed some things that didn't really belong.


 * Hopefully improved the section somewhat. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for helping. Do you think you can find a cite for "Due to the technical difficulties traditionally involved in making applications optimized for multicore CPUs, the majority of computer applications do not effectively utilize multiple processor cores."? I'm currently working on Moscow International Business Center - It needs a lot of work, (as in it was probably written by an anonymous Russian with 2nd grade English), so I haven't the time. It looks like people responded to my message, so it no longer applies. --Radiation warning symbol.svg 09:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. Got the other "citation needed" while I was there. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot. I guess all it takes to reference an article is a stern message to others and a few volunteers. I probably won't be editing this page again in a long time, so this discussion is pretty much closed. --Radiation warning symbol.svg 14:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

File compression
Snow Leopard brings back the resource fork, just when I thought Apple had abandoned that. Most of the system files are compressed, into resource forks, and unless some update has fixed this, they show as being zero size in the finder. Is there any way to completely disable this compression? With today's huge hard drives there's really no need for it. BTW, Windows has had similar compression since NT4 (but not in the 9x line) and most people never used it because it didn't save much space and slowed things down a little, "plus" if you password protected AND used compression it was for certain impossible to recover data in the event of losing the password or a damaged MFT. I dunno why Apple figured doing something "the other guys" had for years but rarely used was such a great thing. Perhaps it's just showing off how little performance hit it can have doing the pointless compression? Or was it merely to boast about (not really) reducing size of Snow Leopard? It'd be interesting to see a performance comparison of 10.6 with and without the compression in use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 (talk) 11:37, 2010 April 26 (UTC)
 * Just a note that this isn't a general forum, but specifically for discussing improving the article. PaleAqua (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Lion
"Lion" is Mac OS X 10.7, which means it succeeds 10.6, so why not put that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.244.0.89 (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Because, as the comment in the infobox says, "Until Lion is a *shipping product*, it's not yet the successor to Snow Leopard. Please wait until then to fill in "succeeded_by"."  For the vast majority of people, Lion hasn't "succeeded" Snow Leopard yet, because they can't get Lion and install it on their machines.  Even when it's seeded to developers, only a small number of users will be able to get it.  Once you can buy it in stores, then it's succeeded Snow Leopard.   Saying Lion succeeds Snow Leopard is like saying Windows 8 succeeds Windows 7 - for most users, it's not really a successor, because they can't get it. Guy Harris (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if that complies with WP policy. For example there are hundreds of upcoming movies that most people "cant get yet", but are still listed in the infobox as the successor.  Look at The Ring 2 or The Hangover and see their infoboxes.  What's even more absurd, is that Snow leopard is listed as the predecessor to lion on the lion page.  I don't believe there is any reason to hold lion back as the successor.  Only confusing to readers. --Ashershow1talk • contribs 16:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur. An "anointed successor" with a reasonably certain and close ship date is the successor for all intents and purposes. --Cyber cobra (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

EFiX
Produced by ASEM Co., Ltd. with offices in Taiwan. I have visited them on the Computex 2011, also this year. All stated information regarding EFiX in this article is not true. I believe that this information can be taken simple from original creators, also ASEM Co., Ltd websites or forums. Contact information to ASEM Co., Ltd is on their official website: www.asem.com.tw or www.art-studios.net On wiki article says that EFiX is mass-storage device with boot-loader on-board. According to patents i have been read and according to manuals i have here for EFiX, statement in wiki is incorrect. http://www.art-studios.net/en/page/EFIX_BPU_Pages

EFiX is a BPU, also Booting Processing Unit, an registed term for such new type of devices which was originally designed to help users to boot unsupported OS and to offer GUI. In fact EFiX is a complex solution which offer following features: For more information please visit official website of EFiX or talk to the support. I think its simpler than writing or releasing false or misleading information. I have read toms hardware claims. All of them are clearly fabricated. Nothing of stated have been ever proven. There is no any technical evidence that the statements in Toms Hardware are correct or true. Till today, nobody ever hacked EFiX, nor had any proves regarding claims being made.
 * Hardware boot-manager (Patented in USA and other countries)
 * Set of 10+ boot-loaders for: Linux, Windows, Mac OS X 10.5 / 10.6 ,10.7 and 10.8
 * Hardware build-in debugger for Software developers (EFiX V3.0+)
 * Software debugger (activated with F7 Key while booting) offers special debug-mode for Software and / or Hardware developers. (Exist since EFiX V1.1 till today)

Please revise article according to true information. THX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.249.160.22 (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

64-bit architecture
The iMac 10,1 (and later) is also able to run the 64-bit kernel, right? I think the table should be updated to contain the more recent (and current) Macintosh models. I don't know which ones those are, but somebody certainly does. Thank you in advance. 85.1.251.180 (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to echo the previous comment, but for the MacBook Pro5,3. The MacBook Pro 5,1 is in the table as 64-bit capable. Surely the 5,3 is too.--Jeff39 (talk) 03:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ Gold  Renet  22:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There is missing information on MacBookPro3,1

Also, it should be mentioned how to know which kernel is being used — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.21.61.179 (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)