Talk:OS X

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 To redirect or not 1.1 Different tack 1.2 Update from David Pogue on January 11 1.3 Votes on redirection 2 What is the disagreement about?

[edit] To redirect or not

I have reverted this article back from a redirect. I don't want to get into a revert war, but this article is about a distinct thing, contains factual information, and contains a link to a source of such. The article will grow soon, but cannot do so if it isn't even given a chance. In order to reflect the concerns of User:AlistairMcMillan, I have marked this article as a stub to indicate it's current minimum of information. — Epastore 21:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There we go then. I've pared the article down to actual factual content. I'm sure this article will be hitting the front page in no time. <-- sarcasm AlistairMcMillan 22:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And where are the sources? FYI, a discussion forum is NOT a source. Roguegeek (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That'll probably be why I DELETED THE FORUM LINK. AlistairMcMillan 22:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not at all certain that The Steve was referring to a distinct operating system. Isn't this better-served by a statement in the main Mac OS X article? —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 22:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Different tack

Which articles link to this one. Oh look. Only one. iPhone. Does that tell us anything? AlistairMcMillan 22:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Apple Computer operating systems and Category:Upcoming software also link here (or do when I edit the article, anyway). Mac OS X needs to be on those pages. Also, I fully expect OS X to appear on other pages soon, but it can't really do that if it doesn't exist. — Epastore 23:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update from David Pogue on January 11

David Pogue is a preeminent technology reporter and an Apple expert. Yesterday, he published this blog entry: The Ultimate iPhone Frequently Asked Questions, in which he states, in part: "Can it run Mac OS X programs? –No." If the iPhone cannot run Mac OS X programs, then it cannot be said to be running Mac OS X. I think the evidence is overwhelming that OS X is highly distinct from Mac OS X. Would anyone like to change their vote? I'll give it some time, but unless someone can show a compelling proof that OS X is indistinguishable from Mac OS X, I am going to restore this article to a proper stub about OS X, the iPhone operating system. — Epastore 18:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Votes on redirection

Support redirecting to Mac OS X. If and when Apple start talking about the iPhone OS as a distinct operating system also called "OS X", then'll be the time to make it a dab page. –EdC 23:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Please point to a single example of Apple referring to the iPhone operating system as "Mac OS X". AlistairMcMillan 00:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Support redirection to Mac OS X - This makes sense to me. Rethink when Apple produces documentation that can be references as the iPhone operating system being distinctly different. Roguegeek (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Please point to a single example of Apple referring to the iPhone operating system as "Mac OS X". AlistairMcMillan 00:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose redirection - Apple is extremely careful in their word choice in every single other one of their publications. On their biggest product launch in 30 years (that's their term), I do not think they screwed up something so important. Additionally, the iPhone is not a Mac. Apple names their products with extreme care. They would not say "OS X" if they meant "Mac OS X." Before changing this article to a redirect, please show one instance of official Apple product description that refers to Mac OS X as "OS X." Also note the description of OS X on the Apple page. They try very hard to make it sound like it is Mac OS X, but are very clear not to refer to it as such. "All the power and sophistication of" is actually a dis-inclusive statement. — Epastore 23:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

If at some point in the future we actually know something about the operating system other than "called OS X" and "runs on iPhone" and "somehow related to Mac OS X", then we can write an article on it. Having an article that saying "a bunch of people on a forum think X, Y and Z" isn't an option given our rules about WP:NOR and WP:VERIFY and WP:NOTE. AlistairMcMillan 00:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I feel like a theologian quoting counter-verse, but gotta do it... This article is flagged with Template:Future_product, which informs the reader that it "may contain preliminary or speculative information." But more importantly, this article is a proper stub, as per Wikipedia:Stub#Ideal_stub_article, in that its intent is to be expanded. Even though it is very short, it is more than a definitional article. It is important to note the distinction Apple is making between OS X and Mac OS X. I have read many, many media articles stating that the iPhone runs Mac OS X, and this is clearly not supported by the evidence. This is not original research, it is concision. — Epastore 01:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

That's great and all, but it hasn't been decided to turn it into an article yet. In fact, more editors are leaning towards keeping it a redirect at this point. A disambiguation page is fair for now until more editors can chime in on what to do with it. Roguegeek (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm highly inclined to revert it back right now, but I'll wait for some other opinions. However, diisambiguation is not right because while OS X "may refer to" Mac OS X, it is not a definition of it and is not an official name for it. The disambiguation page has no allowance for a misuse of a word like that. What you need here is Template:Otheruses4 used above a regular article. However there's not much point in using it on a stub, since the Mac OS X link appears just one sentence down. Reverting to the previous stub seems like a reasonable way to solve this. In any event, I'm going to revert the categories, and the future software tag is meaningless on a disambiguation page. — Epastore 02:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to Apple's first press release which uses the phrase "Apple continues to lead the industry in innovation with its award-winning desktop and notebook computers, OS X operating system, and iLife and professional applications." without calling it "Mac OS X". It's from July 2004. MFNickster 05:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Good catch... That is the only place I have ever seen Apple fail to use the Mac before OS X. However, that is written by Public Relations, not by Marketing. All documents from Marketing always say "Mac OS X," as does every mention of the Mac operating system on the website. Why would they screw up on their most important product launch ever? — Epastore 18:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Support Redirection to Mac OS X. Thats what I expected when coming here, and I believe thats what other readers expect. Also the Mac OS X article has a section on OS X on iPhone. I think if apple makes a definitive statement as to the relationship of Mac OS X to the version that runs on the iPhone I surmise they're probably closer than farther apart. —Cliffb 20:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose redirection - on every page on apple.com, in the whole keynote, in every information material Apple call this system only OS X. And as Epastore said, this product is very important for them. --Have a nice day. Running 21:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Support when Jobs is showing the keynote he refers to OS X, making no new intro to a different OS: so it's the same OS, different GUI. Sfacets 19:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That is rather specious logic. When he introduced the iPod, he did not indicate what OS it ran, so does that mean it runs Mac OS X? Apple has been very clear to not make any indication of the word "Mac" in their description of the operating system on the iPhone. They have done everything they can to make the two sound like they are the same thing, but they are very careful to maintain a distinction. — Epastore 20:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirected - To me, it's quite simple. OS X is an operating system. When OS X is implemented on the Macintosh computer system, it's called Mac OS X. But when OS X is implemented on other platforms, it makes no sense to append "Mac" to it, when it's not actually running on a Mac. The iPhone is not a Mac, but it runs OS X. There is no contradiction in terms there. FCYTravis 05:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

By that logic, shouldn't Mac OS X redirect to here? — Epastore 16:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be a question to ask over on the Talk page for Mac OS X when we have some actual facts to work with, instead of speculation and rumors. FCYTravis 20:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose redirection. Even though it is a full version of Mac OS X, it's still an obviously distinct different version (not the same input method as Leopard, obviously looks rather different (No dock, etc)...). Tiger, Leopard and the rest have their own pages, so why not OS X? --Devnevyn 19:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is the disagreement about?

Here is my question, what is our disagreement about? Is it:

1. A disagreement on what OS X on the iPhone is?
2. What about what readers expect from us editors on navigation and clarity in the encyclopedia?

One is not the providence of an encyclopedia. Two is.

Right now there is unsupported speculation if OS X on Macintosh Computers is completely different than OS X on the iPhone. (I don't think there is any doubt that this is a version of OS X especially for the iPhone, as there is evidence that the iPhone is on an ARM processor, which wouldn't be supported by either the PPC or Intel version of OS X.) But does having a version complied for a different processor warrant a different page? We don't have a page for the PPC version of OS X and the Intel version of OS X so why should there be a disambiguation page between the iPhone version and the computer version?

Just because it is locked down doesn't mean it is a completely different animal. Apple has created locked down front ends for the "kids" iMacs in their store, and you can configure a Macintosh Computer running OS X to run in a Kiosk mode, Apple has created a locked down mode of OS X for the iPhone, so again what is the difference? Do we have a page for Kiosk mode OS X and regular mode OS X?

To throw gas on the fire, should Apple TV be listed on this page? It runs on an Intel processor and again is probably running a version of OS X.

I'll concede that there is a semantic speculation as to if OS X on an iPhone is exactly the same as OS X on a Macintosh computer, but this is almost a philosophical debate. We could write long papers on this without coming to an agreement, and we'd all have good points to ponder.

So the bottom line is what service does having this as a disambiguation page do for our readers and for us as editors?

I don't think it does much. I think for our readers it adds in an extra click if they're trying to find the article on the operating system, and it doesn't provide anywhere for us to refine the work as editors.

This page, as it stands today, doesn't have a much of a purpose that I can see.

—Cliffb 05:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a page for MacBook and a page for MacBook Pro, because they have two different names. Likewise, Mac OS X and OS X are two different product names. — Epastore 16:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me clear up my perspective on this. I don't doubt for a minute that the operating system on iPhone vs the versions on Macs are drastically different. I'm simply saying that as of today, we have little information about this product beyond the fact that it's some form of the OS X operating system. That's it. It's not enough to really support a whole new article, but it should be made a note of in the Mac OS X article, which is why I've left it alone there. As time goes by and we learn more, I very much think it will deserve a stand-alone article. Just not right now. Start the info in the Mac OS X article and, as it expands, we'll create a new one. Who knows, Apple may very well brand the iPhone OS something completely different. Only time will tell. Roguegeek (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This is an awesome pissing contest over a wee redirect. It's great to see so many people up in arms about this, rather doing more important stuff. +mwtoews 00:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)