Talk:Mac OS X/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

'v' in Mac OS X version names

The proper names of the Mac OS X operating system releases have "v" in them, like "Mac OS X v10.0". Apple uses "v10.0" on its web site and in its documentation. Calling it "Mac OS X 10.0" is incorrect. The "X" stands for "10", so "X 10.0" would be redundant. For an example of Apple's use, see [1]. Please don't rename the Mac OS X release articles to names that aren't correct. - Brian Kendig 03:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Interface Article name standardization

Can we standardize the article names for the various interfaces? Right now we have:

It's frustrating, because when I'm writing articles on OS X, I have to look up the individual article to make sure that I'm linking to it correctly. Can we rename all these something standard, like Quartz (interface) or something similar? Is there a WikiProject that handles these kind of conventions already? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:32, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

How about the following since Quartz, Aqua and Cocoa only relate to Mac OS X? Maybe even just Macintosh in brackets after all of them, since they are all to do with the Macintosh platform in one way or another.
AlistairMcMillan 18:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This is almost as inconsistent! The problem is knowing which form an article title takes when writing another article containing a link - you'd still need to know enough about the various technologies to decide which one to pick, or else open another browser and look it up while you're editing (which I find a bit irritating, but what can you do?). How about just suffixing every Mac article with (Mac). That way we always know what form it takes, it's almost certainly not going to clash with any unrelated article title, and it helps to keep the topics together. Personally I don't see a need in a general encyclopedia like this to have to make a distinction between classic Macs and OS X, etc - we are not attempting to be a developer resource or anything. Graham 00:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The standing principle is to use the most general disambiguation terms possible. If there's only one noteworthy person named Joe Smith in the world, you entitle it "Joe Smith". If there are two, and one writes science-fiction novels, and the other plays hockey for the Boise Brawlers, you disambiguate them as "Joe Smith (writer)" and "Joe Smith (athlete)". You only resort to "Joe Smith (science-fiction novelist)" if there's also a famous Joe Smith who writes westerns and one who writes sci-fi screenplays. So unless there are other instances of "Aqua" in the realm of computing which require disambiguation from the Mac OS X GUI, "Aqua (computing)" or maybe "Aqua (software)" would be most appropriate. Tverbeek 01:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree, all of the articles should be Quartz (computing} because that is the most general thing we can do, and still keep the category clear. Only in the rare cirumstance of there being multiple meanings of the same word (like if there was a program named Quartz) should be resort to somthing different. Standarization is important, and this would be the way to do it. --Ctachme 02:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Uhm... http://www.opensymphony.com/quartz/  :) AlistairMcMillan 14:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Good point. I'm inclined to go with Alistair's suggestions, with the system names in the title. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:17, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
That was just an example. Because of that you still wouldn't want to do Quartz (Mac) because it is still not specific. What if this Quartz thing linked to worked on a Mac? No, I still think it would be best be as general as possible. --Ctachme 02:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"you'd still need to know enough about the various technologies to decide which one to pick, or else open another browser and look it up while you're editing" Two things. First of all I think we'd all hope that editors who are writing about something would "know enough" before hitting the Edit link and second with the fluid nature of Wikipedia you pretty much have to check every link you create anyway. Just look at the pages for the various OS X versions, in the last week they moved three or four times, who knows where they'll be next week. AlistairMcMillan 01:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ctachme, what interface names do you suggest then? Keep in mind that naming conventions state that disambiguation names are supposed to be as general as possible without possible ambiguity with other topics. I personally think that Alistair's suggestions fit those criteria, but if you have a better suggestion I'm open to it. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 13:21, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
We should do exactly what it says: if there are no other like-named computing articles you use Somthing (computing), if there are, but are no like-named software articles then you do Somthing (software), and you get more specific until you have eliminated any like named aricles... why arbitratilly set it at Somthing (Mac OS X), when it's just as possible that there be another thing in Mac OS X that applies (like if there was a software program named Quartz that runs on Mac OS X). For these few examples I would do:
  • Quartz (technology) (if there was a more specific article for any of this, like [2], then you should make the category more specific if needed)
  • Platinum (technology)
  • Aqua (technology)
  • Carbon (technology)
  • Cocoa (programming enviornment) (Cocoa (Mac OS X) shouldn't be used because CoCoA System runs on Mac OS X)
I would also suggest that the software articles like Apple Mail be changed to Mail (Apple software) since the name of the application is NOT "Apple Mail" it's simply Mail. --Ctachme 20:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know the comparison isn't exactly perfect, but I don't see why we have to be so vague. If there were a great number of people name Jean-Luc Picard, you wouldn't do Jean-Luc Picard (television character), you would do Jean-Luc Picard (Star Trek). Isn't the idea behind the "standing principle" you mentioned, to make sure you don't exclude anything, Our Platinum article, is directly related to the Mac OS. Our Quartz article, is directly related to Mac OS X. We are not excluding other things that it might apply to, by being exact.

Aside from that, I agree and quite like the Mail (Apple software) idea. Looks a lot better than the current name. Also XCode and Project Builder are programming environments, Cocoa and Carbon are APIs and we don't have to worry about conflicts with CoCoA because it is destinguished by its capitals alone. IMHO. AlistairMcMillan 20:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about:
or some such thing, with appropriate redirects and links from disambiguation pages?
MFNickster 23:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't mean to be picky but... WebKit is a Framework, Cocoa is a great big number of Frameworks and Quartz Imaging is a corporation that has nothing to do with Apple. AlistairMcMillan 19:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sure, that's why I said "something like this." <grin> Would the general solution be applicable, i.e. more detail in the article name rather than trying to explain in parentheses what the context is? Disclaimers can always apply, for example "this article is about Apple's Quartz imaging model, which has nothing to do with Quartz Imaging Corporation," etc.
MFNickster 20:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I suppose that doing *_(computing) would be good... there seems to be quite a few other computing articles that use (computing), instead of someing more general like (technology). I'll move those pages in a while when I have time, or some else can do it. A friend convinced me otherwise. --Ctachme 23:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello; just weighing in with on observation. In general, when the title of an article needs to be disambiguated, one of three conventions are followed:

Of those three options, the first seems most applicable to the debated articles. These article titles might be appropriate, but I'm not really formally proposing them:

  • Quartz (graphics layer)
  • Platinum (theme)
  • Aqua (graphical user interface) [could conceivably be made shorter or more general, e.g. (user interface) or (GUI)]
  • Carbon (programming interfaces)
  • Cocoa (programming environment)
  • Mail (software) [or maybe (program); doesn't really need to be (Apple software) as there is no other software simply called "Mail"]

I would however strongly disagree with appending (computing) or (Mac OS X) to disambiguate the titles. --Miles (Talk) 01:23, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Update: There does seem to be a fourth category that deals with proper nouns disambiguated with the proper nouns of context, most often used with fictional elements of TV shows or movies, but I can't really determine when that should be used outside of fiction. --Miles →☎ 00:02, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you say but not Mail (software), because that is far to easy to get confused with Mail Software, as in e-mail software. Maybe Mail (email client). But then what do you do with Installer.app? Installer (software)? Installer (installer software)? Or Address Book? --Ctachme 01:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Based on Preview (software), Sherlock (software), Keynote (software), Apple Address Book, Apple Soundtrack, Installer (Mac OS X), Macintosh Finder and Safari (web browser), I would have to say... there's no clear precedent. And that is also something that needs to be decided. I would think that a general term that is common to as many articles as possible would be desirable, like "software" or "application" or "program". "Apple _____"-style titles and the like should be ruled out, since that isn't how Apple formally names its software. --Miles (Talk) 02:16, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
So while before you said you like Safari (web browser), but now you want a term that is as common to as many articles as possible? So what do you want? --Ctachme 02:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I see nothing wrong with Safari (web browser), but if there were a naming convention to standardized Macintosh application (or other software) names, then I think that it should follow that convention. --Miles (Talk) 02:40, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Just to be clear what I think is being suggested: use a general-as-possible noun to describe the actual word, like Platinum (theme). However, for things like Apple Mail we should do Mail (email client), because that will be in line with other software which tries to identify the genre (it appears that most disabigged software i've seen has the genre with it, I see no reason to change that. That said I actually will make the changes now. --Ctachme 22:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see you have done that. Unfortunately I don't think it was clear than any consensus has been reached, and the changes as they stand just seem even more of a mess to me. I particularly object to Cocoa (API) since Cocoa is NOT an API. (What does the 'A' stand for? Right.). Since all of these related articles have one thing in common - they are all solely Macintosh technologies - I think a common disambiguation such as umm, (Macintosh) would be more than adequate, and would help to unify all of these articles, as well as fixing the main problem, which is knowing what a related article is likely to be called when writing something that links to them. HOwever, whatever the scheme we go fo, a full consensus should be reached - I think changing the article titles now, as you have, is premature, and likely as not will just have to be undone again.Graham 23:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Go ahead and change it back. However, had I not done that no consensus would have been reached because people stopped discussing it for some reason. The whole point of wikipedia is to make changes, of course. There's nothing wrong with making a change today and then another change tommorrow. --Ctachme 23:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, you're right in one respect - making a change certainly prompts discussion! However, if a discussion just dies out, that in itself is an outcome - it means people don't feel strongly enough and are happy with how it is, or at least not too bothered by how it is. Yes WP is about making changes, but changes to article titles should not be undertaken lightly, because it amounts to a lot of work, especially if there are many inbound links that need to be updated, as there are here. I suggest you change it back, since you did the deed - and let's either agree on a naming convention by consensus, or lese leave it as it is if there is none reached.Graham 01:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You're quite wrong that people are content with it the way it is now... the consensus clearly is that we want some sort of standardization (apparently you just see the problem as what form that standardization should take). I will fix any changes I made ... but only after we have reached a decision (again... if you feel it's something that needs to be done do it yourself). --Ctachme 20:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not saying there is nothing wrong with the current scheme, or that people are wholly content with it. Obviously not, and if you look further up you'll see I took part in the early stage of the discussion as well. What I'm saying is that there has not been a consensus reached YET. And until there is, making an arbitrary change on a whim as you have done is unhelpful and premature. Take one example - Apple Chess is now Chess (chess client). How is that going to help anyone? The title is now more complex, has lost its connection to the Mac platform, and will be the last thing anyone thinks of when looking for it by using a search. The previous name is entirely fine. Categories bring it into a group with other chess clients, so there is no need to place this redundant information in the article title as well. Other changes are equally wacky, but I won't enumerate them. My argument is, UNTIL a consensus about a change is reached, there should be NO CHANGE. This isn't to imply that there shouldn't ever be a change, or that the current scheme couldn't be improved. The arbitrary changes are highly detrimental to the findability of the articles, and do not adress the fundamental problem which caused this discussion, which is a lack of consistency. I ask you, please, change them back. If you don't I will, but since it's a non-trivial amount of work that you have created, and my time is limited, I really think you should do it. Graham 00:15, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think we clearly disagree here. I see now that Cocoa (API) is a poor name because according to naming conventions the abbreviation should only be used when it is much more common and readily recognizable than the actual article. However, that has nothing to do with your argument, which is not about abbreviations, but about the philosophy behind the naming. If you look at the informal poll I just started, you can see that there are two different methods for disambiguation article names: using a descriptive noun and using a context. I used the descriptive noun. I don't really see how this is at all 'arbitrary.' As for Chess, I am in complete disagreement and cannot understand what you are thinking. Apple Chess is not perfectly fine. Apple Chess doesn't exist, it never has! That's making up a completely arbitrary name for a program that has a name. That program is Chess plain and simple. If, however, you wanted to name it to Chess (Apple chess client) or just Chess (Apple software) as I suggested above (but decided against as you can clearly see). That would be understandable because you are then defining the context as per the naming conventions. The same goes for incorrect names such as Apple Mail and Apple Darwin, they are not merely poor choices for names... they are wrong. --Ctachme 01:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • How about "Chess.app"? per this page [3]
MFNickster 03:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(Resetting the indenting, it's getting pushed too far off the right). OK, Apple Chess may not be the best name for the article, but it is still better than Chess (chess client), because a) it refers specifically to the Mac OS X Chess program, and b) gives readers a reasonable chance of finding it in a search. Personally my proposal would be that all Mac OS X related articles should be suffixed (Mac OS X), or perhaps (Macintosh) or (Mac), in which case Chess (Mac OS X) would be ideal. Cocoa (API) is wrong not because of the abbreviation reason, but because Cocoa is not an API! As you put it yourself, it's not merely a poor choice of name, it's wrong. I think we have to keep in mind that Wikipedia is here to serve its users and that means primarily its readers. Its writers are also its users of course, and that's where this argument started - naming articles so that linking to them while writing another becomes predictable. Its the desire for predictability that is behind my proposal that a common suffix be adopted, and using one such as (Macintosh) or (Mac OS X) also serves the reader in that it means that chances are if you know one article about a Mac program is titled in this way, then you can guess that another will be too, and so it will be a simple matter to put that in a search. I don't see how a multitude of suffixes which may be technically correct but unfindable and unpredictable serves anybody except pedants. Your proposal for (Apple software) isn't too bad - it can be applied to most of the articles we are taking about, but a more succinct (Mac OS X) or just (Mac) would be better IMO since it's easier to remember, easier to type and applies across a wide range of differing kinds of articles (i.e. hardware and software technologies, as well as application programs, etc). But coming back to your point - we don't disagree fundamentally. I think a change is probably necessary, I just don't think it should be made yet until we decide WHAT the change should be. I appreciate your desire to force the issue by making a change, but it hasn't been sufficiently thought through. Also, while there are naming conventions established for disambiguating titles, it doesn't mean that we are forced to stick to them if they don't fit our needs. WP is still evolving, so those "rules" are not set in concrete. I think for this particular area, the rules are inadequate, since there isn't a generic noun that can be applied across the board. The one thing that all of the articles have in comon is the platform of which they are a part, so let's use that.
What's needed here is more input from others so a decision can be made. And yes, a decision that ends up as "do nothing" is still a decision, which we should agree to abide by if that is the consensus. I think we should turn this into a poll - first, we'll request the proposed options, then we'll take a vote on the options. So, let's get the ball rolling - please add your proposal(s) to the list below.
  • 1. A unified suffix for all Mac related articles:
    • a) (Mac)
    • b) (Macintosh)
    • c) (Mac OS X)
  • 2. Diverse suffixes for different technology areas:
    • a) (Mac Application), (Mac API), (Mac software), etc...
  • 3. Leave it exactly as it was. (The default, if no consensus is reached).

(please append further proposals or extend the existing ones and number/letter them clearly so a vote can be taken later).

Please use the topic at the bottom of the page that I already created in an attempt to do exactly this --Ctachme 01:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

What should the versions be called?

I'd like to standardize the names of the articles for the Mac OS X versions, and decide on a consistent way of referring to the versions in the articles themselves. As I see it, It comes down to two questions. - Brian Kendig 02:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(1) Should the version numbers have a 'v' in them,? Apple's usage includes the 'v' - as in, Mac OS X v10.4 - because the 'X' is pronounced "ten" and saying "mac os ten ten point four" sounds weird. Apple's naming of its products is reflected elsewhere in Wikipedia as well, such as words not being capitalized in iPod shuffle or Mac mini. However, Google shows more hits on Mac OS X 10.4 without the 'v' than with it. Should the article names and the articles themselves reflect Apple's naming, or the colloquial usage?

(2) Should the versions be referred to by number, by cat name, or by both? That is, should it be Mac OS X v10.4 (with or without the 'v', depending on the previous poll), or Mac OS X Tiger, or Mac OS X v10.4 "Tiger" (Apple uses the quotes), or Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger (without the quotes)? Note that if the cat names are used, versions 10.0 and 10.1 will still be referred to as "Mac OS X v10.0" and "Mac OS X v10.1" because their cat names weren't part of their official public names.

  • Apple itself doesn't seem to have a standard for this: The box for 10.2 is labeled Mac OS X Version 10.2 Jaguar whereas the box for 10.3 is labeled Mac OS X Panther Version 10.3. The mock-up boxes for 10.4 on the Apple store appear to just say Mac OS X Tiger but it's hard to tell. JeremyA 02:49, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It didn't occur to me to look at the boxes for 10.2 and 10.3 - I'm just going off the most recent style that Apple uses on its web site. - Brian Kendig 02:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The "big cat" code names should probably be left off the article titles, but possibly used in redirect pages. I think the titles are good the way they are now, with the 'v', following Apple's convention and not the colloquial usage. Leaving out the 'v' may be common, but that doesn't make it any more correct by its popularity. Apple's convention makes sense if these are versions of an OS product named "Mac OS X," even if the "ten" gets repeated. It doesn't make much sense if you consider Mac OS X to be a new and different product from Mac OS 9 (so Tiger would really be v1.4 of "Mac OS X") In a similar vein, System 7.5.3 was still a version of "System 7" even though the minor version numbers had increased. Glad they didn't call it "System 7 v7.5.3" though!
MFNickster 04:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I vote for anything that is based on the version number, either the "Mac OS X 10.x" or the "Mac OS X v10.x" format. Using the cat names is a bad idea for reasons I explained on the 10.4 Talk page, and using both just ends up with really unwieldy ugly overly-long links. AlistairMcMillan 04:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." That means reading the tea leaves of Apple's package designs and scrutinizing the text of their web site to divine the True Name of the releases is not the answer. Also, even if you settle on an official version of the name, that doesn't mean that every reference to it has to use that name. We don't spell out "President George Herbert Walker Bush" every time we talk about W's dad; we call him whatever makes sense in the context of the article. Tverbeek 12:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So it looks like people aren't in favor of having the cats in the article names, but we need opinions on whether or not to keep the 'v' in the article names. If we do decide to keep the 'v', then I'll need someone who's an admin to please move Mac OS X 10.0 to Mac OS X v10.0, and Mac OS X 10.1 to Mac OS X v10.1. It appears that when Cantus moved them to the non-'v' names, he edited the redirect pages (simply capitalizing the word 'redirect') to prevent me from undoing his move. - Brian Kendig 02:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since Google has the most results for Mac OS X 10.3 and the like I say we revert back to the ways it's always been and forget the whole issue. --Ctachme 03:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
50,000,000 Elvis fans can be wrong! - MFNickster

Between this vote and the discussion on Talk:Mac OS X v10.4, I'm seeing an equal count of people who want 'v' in the names and those who don't. I'm also seeing that people generally don't really care too much about it. So I'm going to leave Mac OS X v10.2 and Mac OS X v10.3 and Mac OS X v10.4 because they reflect Apple's naming, and I'm going to ask an admin to rename Mac OS X 10.0 and Mac OS X 10.1 to add the 'v'. - Brian Kendig 20:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then allow me to weigh in specifically saying that I don't like "Mac OS X v10._". Nobody except Apple puts a "v" in there in actual usage, and while I respect Apple's right to establish official trademarks, that is not our concern here. Our concern is what people actually refer to them as. Tverbeek 02:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In that case, if we're going with popular opinion, Tiger would be "Mac OS X.4" or "Mac OS 10.4", if they're not using the code names. Virtually nobody, including Apple, refers to it in common parlance as "Mac OS X version 10.4" or "Mac OS X version 4." The "v.10.4" style is formally correct, and the "version 10.4" style is the common usage. They're really not that far apart, considering that "v." is an abbreviation of "version." Oh, and for that matter, whether you or I like or dislike it isn't really relevant; we're concerned with accuracy, not POV.
MFNickster 07:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What I "don't like" is someone pushing a usage that is awkward and not particularly widespread in the real world. Further, I find it surprising that you'd cite "Mac OS X.4" as "popular"; I use it myself to be clever, but I've rarely seen it elsewhere. What - other than the fact that somebody didn't like its failure to comply with Apple's official usage - was wrong with "Mac OS X 10._"? It is A) highly popular, B) clear and unambiguous as to the topic of the article, C) consistent with standard product-name-followed-immediately-by-a-number notation (since "Mac OS X" is effectively the product name), and D) easy to link to. It wasn't broken. Tverbeek 12:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have made the distinction between how people write it and how they say it. Most people say "oh ess ten point four" or, if they're really clueless, "oh ess ex ten point four." I've never heard anyone (either from Apple or personal acquaintance) say "oh ess ten ten point four" or "oh ess ten version ten point four." I can't tell you what's "wrong" with "Mac OS X 10.x" except that it's not very accurate going from Apple's materials. That's all; it's not subjectively better or worse IMHO. MFNickster 13:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
How people say it isn't the question. (No one ever pronounces the "slash" in "OS/2", but there it is in the article name.) Nor is Apple's usage the question. (The Open Group hates it when people write "Unix-like", but we do.) The question is: What has the best combination of clarity, disambiguity, and ease of use, for an independent, popular-use encyclopedia? I think inserting the "v" makes it less easy, and gains no real clarity or disambiguity. The topics of pronunciation and formal usage are better covered in the articles. Tverbeek 13:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Good points. I vote that the articles be named with the word "Version" for clarity and that redirects be put in place for titles including the common usage and abbreviations, i.e. redirecting "Mac OS X 10.4," "Mac OS 10.4," "Mac OS X Tiger," and "Mac OS X v10.4" to an article titled "Mac OS X Version 10.4"
MFNickster 22:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Adding "Version" only makes the name longer, and unless you expect people to use that format in the text of other articles (they won't), it requires the use of piped links or redirects for wikilinks. What exactly do you have against "making linking to those articles easy and second nature" as Wikipedia policy suggests? Tverbeek 00:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree... I still don't see what's wrong with Mac OS X 10.3 --Ctachme 00:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is the "Version" proposal serious? --Miles←☎ 01:05, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
Debate over this seems to have died down, but at this point I'd just like to say that the "Mac OS X v10.x" format makes the most sense to use, for the reasons of being the official Apple usage, making technical sense, and the fact that it doesn't really matter--thanks to redirects, people will find it with or without the v. --Miles←☎ 03:44, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

The Mac OS X v10.x format gets my vote. AlistairMcMillan 04:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tiger: 8A425 or 8A428?

Article mentions 8A425 in late March 2005 is the GM for Tiger. Various rumor sites say 8A428 in April 2005. Can anyone provide a solid reference for one or the other? If not, it should be removed until April 29th. --Steven Fisher 06:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Remove until Tiger is available. I work on Tiger at Apple, and things can change at the last minute - don't believe anything about it until you get a copy off a store shelf. Stan 13:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Done. Thanks for your input. :) --Steven Fisher 00:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Can someone please explain why so many people have a problem understanding that pre-release information is not final? This is so damn stupid. Guys, until the date ticks and it officially goes, it isn't set in stone. Apple could withdraw and re-issue the 10.4 build. Sure, it would be expensive, but they've done it in the past with previous releases. Leave it for now. It's better to be missing something than have bad information. Personally, I'm sick of making this edit, so I'm just cutting it out this time. Learn. --Steven Fisher 14:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It's probably my own darn fault. I've edited the article to reflect the expected build number, the accidental shipping, and why 8A428 might not be the final release. Hopefully that will hold until the 29th. --Steven Fisher 14:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Too many links

We have excessive links here. I'm going to remove ArsTechnica preview reviews.

I've restored the preview review links that were deleted. They do a pretty good job of illustrating the evolution of Mac OS X, so I think it is worth keeping them around. AlistairMcMillan 00:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
What about getting rid of the recently added creativebits link? Doesn't seem to be anything unique, popular or timely there. --Steven Fisher 01:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While we are on the subject, do any of the real editors here value the www.macosx.com link at all. I've been a Mac user since Mac OS X was released and visit a long list of Mac websites, forums and blogs regularly, but I'd never once heard of www.macosx.com until a bunch of anon IP editors started spamming it here on Wikipedia. That's why I kept pulling it recently every time it was added, but I wanted to ask just in case it is really popular and I've just somehow missed it. AlistairMcMillan 01:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd never heard of it, and it doesn't seem to have anything especially unique or interesting. I recommend removing it and letting people find it via Google or Dmoz - Wikipedia is not a link repository. - Brian Kendig 01:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have been a long time Mac user, and Apple II user prior to those days. I discovered MacOSX.com a few years ago and have found it to be a really helpful site. What they lack in content (news articles, etc) they make up for in answering my core support needs. In fact, rarely do I post their do I find they can't help me out. More recently, they are now offering a personal support service (outside the forums) and it's all free. I think this is a must have link for this page. Just my 10 cents worth. I hadn't heard of other links listed here, so will have to check out a few of those sites as well. So, awareness I don't think should be a factor in if it stays or not. - Niceguyosx 06:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi Niceguy, I see you're new here. Unfortunately, many people try to hijack wikipedia to place unnecessary links here as a form of self-promotion. This is considered a form of pagerank vandalism. As the site in question has an alexa rank of almost 300,000, it's probably not notable enough to be included at this time. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:48, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
Weird, when I run a Alexa.com rank on that site it shows up as 58,421. In fact, I compared the ones listed... www.macosxhints.com, 39,401 - www.macfixit.com, 51,704 - www.macosx.com, 58,421 - www.osxfaq.com, 101,873. Looks like it's in line with the other sites listed. -- Niceguyosx 19:09, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
Are we using the same search? Under "Site stats for macosx.com" I see a Traffic rank of 295,424. For macosxhints.com, I see a traffic rank of 5,724 and for macfixit.com I see 7,478. osxfaq shows up as 63,717, so I could see that being removed, but it's borderline. Over 100,000 we usually throw them out. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:03, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
I just went to Alexa.com and did a search to get the results for the site. Type in macosxhints.com and it will show the current page rank. -- Niceguyosx 22:23, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
Ah! I see what you are looking at, the 3 mo numbers change. Like on Macfixit, it shows its ranks has moved up by 7,478. The actual rating is the "Today" rating or the number listed for the actual traffic ranking. If you do a search using the traffic-rating button links on the right hand side for a given site, it gives you a number, more of a avg I think. -- Niceguyosx 22:32, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, Ill be the first to admit, I never use Alexa, so I had to figure all this out. Okay, it appears the "number" Alexa uses as the official "site rank" number is the 3 mo avg. The 3 mo change is it's rank change over the last 3 months (Im assuming only). macosxhints.com showed a avg ranking of around 12,000 today, while macosx.com showed 58,000. However, last week, macosx.com showed a 1 week avg of 12,000 while macosxhints.com is 23,000. So, if we are going to judge a site based on Alexa, then it should be their 3mo number or number they display when you do a search on a given site or use the traffic rank "buttons" results. What a mess. ;) -- Niceguyosx 22:44, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

And why has macosx.com's rank moved up recently? Could it be because we are linking to it now? AlistairMcMillan 18:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who cares. For ease of use we should just use the rank given on the first info page for the site. It still shows up as 290,000+, so until it's less than 100k lets not add it. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:02, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Let's go with what Alexa.com says. It shows macosx.com with 58,421 ranking [The link is here.[4]] so it stays.. OSXfaq.com goes, it's higher than 100,000. -- Niceguyosx 01:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, since no editors (aside from Niceguyosx who has zero edits aside from comments on this Talk page) suggested we keep the macosx.com link I'm pulling it. AlistairMcMillan 23:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I continue to see the alexa rank as 295,424. I am removing the link, and you should all be very aware of the Wikipedia:Three Revert Rule. Please stop this ridiculous revert war. We are not going to allow your linkspam in this article. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:11, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
You all crack me up! :D Last check, Alexa.com shows macosx.com at 49,650. I'd like to see a link showing your numbers "DropDeadGorgias". So, AlistairMcMillan, my contributions don't matter because I'm new to the scene? I see. How very thoughtful. I'd like to begin to start editing and helping out. Looks like OSXFAQ.com gets to stay, they are at 98,743 today. -- Niceguyosx 19:44, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
Are you somehow affiliated with the site? If you look at the site, it looks like a standard adfarm. I don't see what value that site adds to the links already present on the document. If you can provide some example of the content that makes this site worthwhile, we will consider adding it. I'm not sure what alexa tool you're using, but why are you giving two different numbers for the alexa rank? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:15, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
I visit it a few times a week and see whats going on. The reason I think it is a good resource link is not so much the content of the site (articles and what not) but the individual support they provide. If I have an issue I can just go their and ask and one of the volunteers will get back with me. Everyone behind the scenes is a volunteer. I don't feel they have any more ads than Ars Technica or other Mac sites listed in the Wikipedia support links. Besides, I use Firefox and that removes the ads. But, as for content, they have 5 year old messageboard full of good information, they make their private volunteer support tech support questions available to everyone once they close, which is a lot of fun to look through, helps with the learning process. If it was just a forums site, I'd say... leave it off Wikipedia. But, their volunteer supported tech support is worthy of mention. I noticed an article on Wired News that mentioned them and their volunteer tech support in a article about Tiger, so it isn't a unknown site by any means.
As for Alexa.com numbers, it appears those numbers change every few days. Previously, I wrote they had a ranking of around 58,000, but when I looked at it today, it was at 49,000. If you reference the link in my previous post concerning the numbers, you will see that Alexa.com shows their ranking at 49,000. macosxhints.com went to 39,000 and osxfaq.com dropped from 101,000 to 98,000. (Im rounding numbers FYI) So, Im getting those numbers straight from the alexa.com website. The 295,000 number you mentioned is the "change" number, not it's current ranking. -- Niceguyosx 21:44, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I decided to take my first "Editor" roll and attack this one issue. From what I gather, AlistairMcMillan doesn't like the link because a) he has never heard of it, b) someone "spammed" it and c) someone appeared to be a in a dog fight with him over the link. DropDeadGorgias only real hang up on the link is that he feels that it's Alexa.com rating is higher than 100,000... which it is not. It is at 49,000. I have verified this via the Alexa toolbar and a host of other gadgets and results on the Alexa.com website. All show the same number. I, personally speaking, like the linked site. I think it is a primary candidate for being listed. The reason I mention this is that it provides a unique personal support feature most other sites don't. It has over 30,000 registered users, MacOSXHints.com which is also listed (and a great resource I might add) has around 28,000, so about the same size. macosx.com has around 350,000 posts, and macosxhints has around 200,000. macosxhints is around 10,000 points higher than macosx.com on the Alexa scale, whatever that means. But, the key here is they are totally different sites, which is why I feel macosx.com should be listed. It provides a resouce no other Mac site provides, individual support outside of a forum. Since I don't have history as AlistairMcMillan applies to me, a man has to start somewhere... so, although heads will probably roll, I am going to add macosx.com to the list. It's a gutzy move, I realize but I have been known to stand up for the underdog before. Call me a softy. I'd really like to take a greater roll in helping out around here if I can. I am hoping we can all get along and respect each. -- Niceguyosx 5:30, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

If you want to help out here then please contribute something useful. Adding a link that has been repeatedly spammed by a number of anon IP editors (with no other edits) and then removed from this page by a number of editors (not just me) is not helping. AlistairMcMillan 14:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that if the intent of linking to the Ars Technica reviews is to show the development of the OS, they should be moved to Mac OS history or Mac OS X history, particularly since so much of it is no longer current. As for the fight over MacOSX.com, rather than quibbling over its ranking in somebody's search engine, the better question is why we're linking to sites of this sort in the first place. The purpose of a Wikipedia article is to provide information about ____. It is not to help people find tips for how to use it, support for how to fix it, news about stuff related to it, etc. So it's not our job to find these sites for people (that's what God created search engines for), which is why it's not our job to pick out the "right" ones. The only sites we should be linking to are those that confirm or supplement the topic of this page: "What is Mac OS X?" Tverbeek 16:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree—the only link that is currently on the page that should stay is the direct link to Apple's Mac OS X page, everything else should go. -- JeremyA 16:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd be in the "remove the external links completely" camp, particularly the link to the spectacularly-useless-unless-you-pay-them-money macfixit.com. Nandesuka 00:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I second (or third, or whatever) that. Wikipedia is not a link repository. This article should contain only the official Apple web site for Mac OS X - that way it kills all arguments over what other links are "worthy". - Brian Kendig 04:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a link repository" does not mean no links at all. I've cleaned out the obvious links that shouldn't have been there, I'll leave the rest for someone else to decide. About the Ars Technica links, I would have moved them to wherever we discuss the development of Mac OS X through the various releases, except we don't really cover that anywhere. Mac OS X history only covers the development up to the first release and all the other pages like Mac OS X and the individual release pages don't really cover anything except for the obvious wow-look features that Apple use to market each new releases. AlistairMcMillan 05:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

  • I've A) moved the Ars Technica links to Mac OS X history, along with the related material from Mac OS history that was more relevant to the OS X article, and B) removed the other news/support sites that were of debatable informational value and encouraged the addition of other promotional links. I left the link to Apple.com for obvious reasons. I left the kernelthread.com link because it is highly informative, generally balanced, and non-commercial in nature. Tverbeek 11:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Core Data

Is Core Data worthy of mention?

Well, you just did, so it must be! It's an important piece of technology for developers, but it's of virtually no interest to end-users. It will probably get a mention on the Cocoa page, though that article is already way too long. Graham 07:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unix certification

I think this section is a little off, and would like to change it. However, I'm not sure what to change it to. This is what I was thinking of. Any comments?

Current text:

Apple claims that they use the term as a genericized trademark and that the cost of certification would make the OS prohibitively expensive, although The Open Group has stated that there is a US$110,000 upper limit on the cost of certification for one company.

Proposed replacement:

Apple claims that they use the term as a genericized trademark and that the cost of certification would make the OS prohibitively expensive. The Open Group has stated that there is a US$110,000 upper limit on the cost of certification for one company. This limit is for The Open Group's certification process and does not include any development or testing support Apple may need to do, so both companies may be right simultaneously.

--Steven Fisher 03:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Umm, that sounds fine. I may not be as versed in this area, so maybe you can give an example of the kind of development or testing support Apple would have to add by being a certified UNIX? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 13:59, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm not an expert, but I expect it would be an internal project with a part-time manager and a couple experts as resources for the cerification process, plus some developers/designers for corrections. Stuff doesn't just happen. Or am I nuts? --Steven Fisher 11:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Informal poll: How to name Macintosh related articles?

There is currently discussion on how to name Macintosh related articles. According to wikipedia naming coventions there are two ways you can disambiguate the names of articles. Please choose one of the two to support for Macintosh related articles.

  • "a generic noun describing what the specific title is an instance of" -- some examples of this method are Quartz (graphics layer) or Safari (web browser) -- if this option is chosen a method for determining the noun should be determined.
  • "the subject or context to which the term applies" -- some examples of this method are Classic (Mac OS X) or Alias (Mac OS) -- if this option is chosen a term that is to be used should be determined.

Comment: I think that a balance should be struck by picking the method that seems most appropriate to the article at hand. For the examples given above, I think the choices of disambiguation are good. It is true that Quartz and Safari are both only used for Mac OS X, but that is not somthing that is inherent to them—potentially (however unlikely) Quartz and Safari could be ported to another operating system. On the other hand, the concept of Classic is intimately tied to the Mac OS— it almost certainly would be called something else if it were running on some other operating system. Similarly, an alias is just the Mac OS-specific name for something that exists in many other operating systems. This is just my interpretation of course, and others I expect can reasonably disagree, but I don't think it is necessary to make all Macintosh-related articles have a consistent system for disambiguation. Discretion and careful judgment should be all that is necessary to pick the best disambiguator. However, if all else fails, I'd recommend falling back on the generic noun method—it is the more familiar and intuitive method—in general, I think the context method should only be applied when there isn't a good generic noun that would be clear and concise. Nohat 05:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agree, 100%. Tverbeek 11:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
My view is that one term should be used, and (Macintosh) or (Mac OS X) is my proposal - in the unlikely event that Quartz or Safari etc ever do move to another OS, we can reconsider at that time - I don't think we should cloud the issue with what might happen in the future. The problem we are trying to solve here seems to me quite simpl e- a) how to make it easy to guess, when writing a related article, what a linked page is called and b) making it easy for a user to search for an article by guessing the name based on one they already know. Threse are really two sidees of the sam ecoin, and the solution is consistency. I think using the generic noun will actually end up leading to a proliferation of titles which appear unrelated, where in reality they are all related to the Mac OS platform - so in other words it's a question of whether we wish to group them according to their functional area (e.g. chess clients vs. web browsers) or by the fact that they are Mac-related. Since categories exist to serve the former need, then given the consistency problem, we should definitely opt for titling that links the articles to the platform.Graham 05:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This all assumes that anyone who is working on or interested in these articles is doing so because they are related to the Mac. This is, of course, not necessarily the case. Using the very same consistency argument you make, someone who is interested in web browsers would argue that all web browsers that require disambiguation should use the consistent disambiguator "web browser". Is there anything other than your own prejudice that makes the fact that all these articles are Mac OS related the most salient characteristic for the purposes of disambiguation? Many of the articles in question just as easily fit into other categories—why should it be that the fact that they are Mac OS-related necessarily be the way they are disambiguated? Nohat 07:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Not that I'm preannouncing anything :-), but Nohat makes a good point about generic code bits or technology; just because they are Mac-only today doesn't mean they will always be that way. QuickTime is an existing example of something that is no longer Mac-only. Another way to look at it is that a better disambiguator is an "is-a", not a "related-to" - Safari "is-a" browser, not "is-a" Mac OS X. For instance, we're more likely to use "(naval officer)" as a person disambiguator than "(US Navy)". Stan 11:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
To your first point, if Cocoa/whatever gets ported to Windows/Linux/whatever (which is unlikely) then we can change the title then. To your second, how about "(Macintosh software)" then? Personally I vote for just sticking "(Macintosh)" on the end. Lets just keep it simple and move on already. I think the most important thing with the names is to make it simple for editors to locate them. Readers are not going to try "Safari (anything)" as their first attempt at locating an article, they'll try "Safari" and that will either point them to the right place or point them to a disambig page that will point them to the right place. AlistairMcMillan 04:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
To pick up on Nohat's comment - no it certainly isn't my prejudice that leads me to my proposal. It's simply that all the articles in question have only this one thing in common. Cocoa and Carbon are developer technologies (APIs if you like, though they are more than that), Safari is a web browser, Quartz is a core OS technology, etc. If they are all named accordingly, they have apparently nothing in common, and the consistency problem multiplies. Categories adequately solve this issue - Safari is in the web browsers category, Quartz in software technologies etc. Categories could also solve the Mac platform issue as well, except that the basic problem is disambiguating the titles - Quartz is not the silica crystal material, and Carbon isn't the element... so something has to be added to the titles, and so by using (Mac) or whatever (it could be XYZ123 for all I care, as long as it's consistent) we provide a common titling scheme that is predictable. Remember, it's in searching and linking articles that the problem of all the disparate titles arises. If we end up with Safari (web browser), Quartz (Graphics technology) etc then that simply hasn't addressed the fundamental issue at hand - all it will have done is duplicate poorly what categories already do very well. Nobody will be any better off - they'll still have to seek out the article before being able to confidently make a link to it. At least at the moment the existing titles have been around long enough that most of us who have written articles linking to them have learned all the quirks. Changing them is just a change. Only a change to a consistent naming scheme is a change worth making. Graham 05:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Making all the Mac OS articles have a consistent disambiguator would not really be adding consistency; it would just be exchanging one inconsistency with another. We would have Opera (web browser), Mosaic (web browser), Lynx (web browser), Arena (web browser), but Safari (Mac OS X). That's not very consistent, is it? Nohat 08:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
That's what i've been trying to do when I moved Quartz from Quartz (Mac OS X) to Quartz (graphics layer)... i.e. we can be consistent, in always doing the method of using a noun instead of a category. (note: the preceding comment was made by User:Ctachme. --Miles←☎ 21:18, May 2, 2005 (UTC))
I think I have made my point, ad nauseam. Yet it also appears as if I'm not making myself understood. Yes, all those web browsers have (web browser) after them, but they are cross platform, and that is what they have in common. The disambiguation is necessary because they are distinct from e.g. Opera the artform, Lynx the animal, etc. So they need it, even though it is duplicating the web browser category. But it always comes back to this: whenever I am writing a Mac-related article, and I want to link to e.g. Safari, or Cocoa, or Quartz, I cannot tell without opening another browser window, searching for the article, etc what the damn thing is called. Same for a reader doing a search. Well, perhaps for Safari that might be acceptable to call it Safari (web browser), but other technologies are not so easily predicted. OK, I know Quartz is a graphics layer, but how would I guess that that was the actual disambiguation used? Instead of say (graphics), or (software), etc? It's pretty arbitrary, and assumes that the term "graphics layer" is widely understood. I contend this, especially for the average lay-reader who is looking for information about Quartz. One could argue that the very act of looking up such in an encyclopedia means that they do NOT know what it is... However, they'd have a fighting chance if all Mac-related articles had a common disambiguation, or at least if most of them did (Safari aside, poor example). Cocoa (Mac), Carbon (Mac), Quartz (Mac), is so much easier and more predictable that trying to simply duplicate categories. (Substitute whatever you like for (Mac) I'm not bothered, as long as a single term is applied, but NOT (API) which is inaccurate). The category disambiguation already assumes you know what the subject is about, which somewhat defeats the purpose of an encyclopedia, and doesn't help a writer linking to the article because you still have to go and look up the arbitrary and unpredictable naming.
My further argument is this: If we cannot agree on how to make a useful and worthwhile change, let's leave it as it is. Which means reverting the pre-emptive changes made recently. This is not to say that I don't see anything wrong with the current system, but it's been in place long enough so that at least writers have got used to the quirks; I know it's Carbon (computing) and Cocoa (software) for example. This doesn't help readers much but at least some of us are used to this. I have written, contributed to or started many of the Mac-related articles on Wikipedia, and it's always necessary to link to many related articles. With the recent changes I can no longer do that, since I have no idea what they are called any more. Graham 00:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
"But it always comes back to this: whenever I am writing a Mac-related article, and I want to link to e.g. Safari, or Cocoa, or Quartz, I cannot tell without opening another browser window, searching for the article, etc what the damn thing is called." Graham, I understand that this is an important argument. But it shouldn't really matter, thanks to redirects. It's perfectly legitimate to use redirects for this. Even if the article on Quartz stays at Quartz (graphics layer), we can have redirects to it from Quartz (Macintosh), Quartz (Mac OS X), or whatever else people are most likely to write. In fact, I think it would be prudent for all Mac OS X-related technologies like Quartz, Dashboard, Spotlight, Cocoa, the Dock, WHATEVER, to have redirects that end in (Mac OS X) redirecting to whatever the article is. Ease of linking is preserved and it now becomes possible to apply a standard naming convention.
"With the recent changes I can no longer do that, since I have no idea what they are called any more." You can continue to use the same article names that you have always used, since moving a page creates a redirect. I agree that it was premature for Ctachme to move the pages, but I want to say that (in general) just become a consensus cannot be reached does not mean the way that's currently being used is best, or even adequate. --Miles←☎ 01:02, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Yet it also appears as if I'm not making myself understood. -- just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they don't understand your aguments... I understand you prefectly and think you are completely wrong. The generic noun method as outlined above is clearly the more popular method (look at all the (web browers) ... Safari is no different), and as such we should try to standardize to that. Mac software is no different from Linux software. As MilesK pointed out, you can still have rediects pointing to pages if you feel somthing is not clear. But either way I think nouns is the best way to go. --Ctachme 01:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
OK, I've made my point, I won't reiterate it. We'll have to agree to disagree - nouns are fine as such, but what IS Cocoa, Carbon, Quartz, etc? Good luck in coming up with a noun that works for some of these that is short, and accurate. Safari I accept, it's a bad example anyway. Regarding redirects - of course the redirects remain, but I thought the idea was to eliminate as many of these as possible, especially for cross-linking? Graham 01:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, it is difficult to come up with nouns for technologies that aren't easy to summarize in a word or two. I kind of feel like I'm waffling here, but personally, I don't care what convention is followed in disambiguating the articles so long as a convention is followed. I was just pointing out that, thanks to redirects, multiple conventions can be followed and ease-of-linking can be preserved.
This discussion kind of seems to have taken over the Mac OS X Talk page and simultaneously outgrown it. Would it be possible to split it off into some prototype naming convention, a WikiProject, or a subpage of this talk page? --Miles←☎ 02:30, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Might I suggest that we use the generic nouns that e.g. Apple uses in the official documentation? Cocoa is an application environment [5]. Quartz is a graphics system [6]. Carbon is a set of APIs [7] or a C interface [8]. Aqua is a user interface [9]. And so on. This isn't rocket science, people. Nohat 07:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

(Resetting indentation due to excessively narrow page width) The problem is these descriptions are inconsistent with other parts of wikipedia, which appears to be what you were mainly pushing for before, so how would this help us? Also, even Apple's descriptions seem a bit off to me - Cocoa is far more than an "application environment" - you can write many types of executable objects with it, not just applications. Likewise with Carbon. "Graphics system" might fly... Is there a way to move this forward? Seems to me we need to get a grip on exactly what the problem is, the size of it, and a what all the various proposed solutions actually are. Then we can eliminate the obvious non-starters and take a vote on the rest. I'm with MilesK - perhaps we should move all of this into a subpage or other article type where it can be worked on. Perhaps someone with a bit more familiarity with WP procedures than I have could take the initiative here? Graham 00:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

  • How about the more general "programming environment" for Cocoa? Tverbeek 13:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Collective nouns and British vs. American English

I see there's a revert war going on with regard to:

rv - "Apple" is a singular noun, it's one corporation.

You all realize/realise that this is a difference between British English and American English, right? In British English, corporations are "collective nouns" (regarding all the members of the corporation) and therefore, plural. In American English, a corporation seems to refer more to "the body" ("corpus") and so is taken as singular.

In general, the Wiki policy with regard to "Corporate" articles is to set them in the version of English that is natural for the home of the corporation (so, in this case, America and American English). But if the article is already set in mostly British English, then it should stay uniformly that way until someone can se-set the entire article.

Atlant 11:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Bloated

I've added a paragraph about the operating system being extremely bloated in the "critisism" section. This is due to the fact that I've discovered that every single native GUI-app on OS-X allocates over 100MB RAM (chech VSIZE in activity monitor). Please help contribute on this topic if you know the reason and/or background for this. --Fredrik Orderud 14:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

First off, I don't see the same phenomenon you see -- many of my apps use only a few megabytes of VSIZE. Secondly, why do you care what the virtual size of an application is, unless you can demonstrate that it has an impact on performance? Unless those pages are being constantly paged in and out of memory, an application can have as big a virtual size as the OS allows without consequence. It's only the number of pages actually resident in memory that matter. I'm going to remove that paragraph as original research unless you can find a credible source for this being a problem. Nandesuka 15:48, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Which graphical apps do you have that allocates less than 100MB RAM? On my OS-X Tiger even small programs like textedit, stickies and activity monitor consumes over 100MB. Isn't this obiously a problem? --Fredrik Orderud 15:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
No. It's only obviously a problem if you don't understand how virtual memory works. Memory that is allocated is not the same as memory that is in use. Allocating and deallocating memory is expensive, in terms of cpu cycles. What you want your applications to do, in the ideal world, is proactively allocate as much memory as they might need, even if they are not currently using that much. Then, when they need it, you avoid malloc overhead and just have to deal with the cost of the paging subsystem doing its job, which you would have to do anyway. If the memory in the application is not actually resident (and is not being paged in and/or out constantly), then it is effectively not being used, and has no impact on performance. See this link for a corroborating opinion. Nandesuka 16:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
But what aout the 4GB barrier on 32bit CPU's (like the G4)? It's kind of impractical to only be able to run ~40 apps simultaneously. --Fredrik Orderud 16:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
I have two responses to that. First, I am a heavy user of machines of all OSes (Mac, Windows, and Linux), and I cannot remember the last time I was running 40 GUI apps at the same time. You're limited by user interface issues long before you hit the memory wall (when was the last time you alt-tabbed across 39 applications to get to the one you wanted to run? I didn't think so.)
Second, I think you misunderstand the nature of the 4Gb barrier. a 32 bit OS is limited to a 4Gb of virtual address space. The "4 Gb barrier" means you can't have a single application that addresses more than 4Gb of virtual memory. Nandesuka 17:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Are you sure about this proactive memory allocation thing? Apple Performance Overview p.29 claims that: Every application has a large virtual size because of the shared region used to hold framework and library code. This makes sense for me, since console apps. doesn't have any larger VSIZE than linux apps. Couldn't the reason simply be that Cocoa (or some other GUI lib) uses ~100MB RAM? --Fredrik Orderud 20:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I am not claiming that OS X preallocates memory in that fashion. I'm using that as an example to illustrate the point that virtual memory use does not necessarily have any impact on system performance, and therefore using VSIZE to decide, well, anything at all, is stupid. The questions are: (1) how much real memory is in use? (in any properly tuned Unix system, at any time, the answer should -- and i'm approximating wildly here -- be "all of it") (2) how much is the system paging? If the system is not paging, it doesn't matter what the VSIZE of all the programs adds up to. No paging == no VM load, effectively. Nandesuka 21:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
But the issue in discussion here isn't performance; it's Software bloat - the problem of programs growing in size both on disk and in memory. And software bloat needs not result in decreased performance if the system is equipped with plenty of RAM. Wouldn't you think that a GUI lib occupying 100MB RAM could be described as bloated? --Fredrik Orderud 21:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Why in the world would anyone care about an aspect of software that is not visible to either the developer or the user? This criticism doesn't make sense. My entire point is that you haven't demonstrated that the programs occupy more memory. You've demonstrated that the number shown in VSIZE is bigger. Which means, approximately, nothing. If it has no impact on performance, why would I care? Nandesuka 22:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay Frederik we get it, you don't like OS X. Please stop looking for reasons to criticize OS X. That section isn't called "Reasons Orderud thinks OS X sucks, but isn't really sure why", it is supposed to contain common criticisms of OS X. AlistairMcMillan 22:09, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't you think that the Wikipedia coverage og Mac OS-X is kind of overly positive compared to Windows? I don't hate OS-X in any way, I actually use it every day. My main mission is that it would be a violation of Wikipedias NPOV to only present the positive sides of an operating system. What about adressing Flash performance on OS-X instead? (which seems to be a bit broader covered; eg. [10], [11]) --Fredrik Orderud 22:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I'd say the coverage looks about the same to me. Can you give a specific example of a problem you see? My objection here is that your criticism of OS X as "bloated" is original research, and incorrect research at that. Nandesuka 22:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
The Windows article adresses several technical problems, like security and performance problems. This OS-X article, on the other hand, doesn't adress any technical problems at all. I agree with you in that my "bloated" argument might have been a bit far stretched, and could be categorized as original research.
But would you object if I wrote a section about "Flash-performance" in OS-X, using the two references above, and some motivation regarding how flash-performance affects web-surfing performance since many websites use flash? --Fredrik Orderud 23:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

That isn't a criticism of Mac OS X though. That is a criticism of Flash. Apple should be criticized because third-party developers pay more attention to other platforms? AlistairMcMillan 23:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

But still, it's a part of the operating system, meaning it's preinstalled when you buy a Mac. I get the feeling of you trying to protect OS-X from "bad coverage". --Fredrik Orderud 23:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Please look at some of my recent edits, I'm just as likely to remove incorrect or biased material from Microsoft articles as I am to remove them from Apple articles. What I'm doing is trying to protect Wikipedia from an editor who doesn't understand NPOV. Just because the Windows XP page includes criticisms doesn't mean the Mac OS X page needs to include criticisms. The Mac OS X page should only include criticisms if people actually do criticize it. And you aren't adding criticisms because you are aware of them, you are deliberately searching for criticisms.
And Apple do not develop the Flash plugin included with Mac OS X. You can't blame them for any lack of optimization on Macromedia's part. And it's not like they can just decide to not include the Flash plugin. AlistairMcMillan 23:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
I took a Flash developers course recently, and was told by a Macromedia rep that Flash is largely developed on the Mac first. All the MM guys we met had Powerbooks as their company demo machines. For me, Flash performance on Mac is as good as if not better than Windows, so not sure where the poster is getting his information. Do you have benchmarks that prove it is slower on Mac? As far as I can see there is no evidence that Flash needs better optimization, or is lacking relative to Windows. But we can always use more performance on any platform. Graham 00:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
I took the liberty of creating a "mac performance" section on Macromedia_Flash. It contains several references, who all claim that the flash perfomance on OS-X is poor. The newest is dated July 2005. --Fredrik Orderud 00:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
This is exactly what I was talking about. Please go and actually read the three links you added to the Flash page. if you do actually read them you might notice that links 1 and 3 are exactly the same article, word for word. AlistairMcMillan 00:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Fixed :) --Fredrik Orderud 00:34, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
BTW, I'm no apologist for Flash - I have many criticisms of Flash on the Mac, but for me performance isn't really one of them, though I accept that others may feel differently. MM cannot build Mac-based user interfaces for toffee, even some of the most basic stuff - like scrolling - seems broken in one way or another. Graham 01:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Coming late to this discussion, and have little to add that hasn't already been said. Whoever made the original remark/observation didn't understand virtual memory; hopefully they do now. The key point is it's VIRTUAL memory, not real memory. There is no limit to the number of simultaneous apps that you can run, though the amount of swapping might kill performance (incidentally, with just 512MB of RAM and Tiger, if I run Photoshop 7 and Safari together then nothing much else gets a look-in, there is a hell of a lot of disk-swapping). In theory every application is given the full addressable range of memory to play with (4GB for 32-bit addressing). I have no idea what the ~100MB might be talking about. This is exactly the same on Windows too - every app gets a VIRTUAL address spage of 4GB. In any case, the word "bloated" is not NPOV, as it inherently carried a negative connotation, so even if it were true, such a description would be inappropriate in Wikipedia. Graham 23:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms

While we're kinda on the subject, can someone cite a source for "some critics point to the lack of upgrade pricing on Mac OS X"? AlistairMcMillan 00:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


agreed --Yoasif 23:37, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Frankly I'm a little surprised that you (i) haven't heard that criticism a million times and/or (ii) couldn't find it with a simple google search. Try any one of these links. Chuck 00:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Most of those seem to be reviews of 10.2 complaining about "no upgrade pricing" after the "free" 10.1 upgrade. If this complaint was a specific reaction to 10.1, perhaps we should mention that. AlistairMcMillan 01:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Sigh... I still can't believe this is even an issue.
I don't have an opinion on this issue, but I'd like to point out that you should welcome and thank fact-checkers. They only want to ensure that Wikipedia is a reliable, neutral encyclopedia. That should be in everyone's interests. James Foster 04:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

very good beta release

Anyone have a source for Steve Jobs saying this? I couldn't find one. --Steven Fisher 23:26:57, 2005-08-22 (UTC)

Okay, it's been over a month. I've pulled it. If anyone can provide a reference, they're welcome to put it back in. --Steven Fisher 05:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

A call for help and a suggestion

I am calling on our OS X contributors to update Common Unix Printing System - considering how important this subsystem is to OS X I really feel bad that the CUPS article doesn't even mention it alongside its mention of RedHat, Mandriva, KDE, etc.

On another point: this is a great article for those who want to know the basics of OS X, and I must say it is very readable and well set out. However, I was wondering if someone could put together an Architecture of OS X article. Currently the Windows 2000 article has one, and I think that OS X would benefit from one also. This could then be summarised and added to this article.

Anyway, take this as you will. Thanks for the informative article - I hope someone can take on board my constructive criticism and make this article even better! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

How do I keep running into you in these OS articles? Seriously, I'll give the architecture article a shot. Niteice 23:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Task manager???

This may sound like a stupid question, but I'm new to using Mac (been using XP), and I can't seem to find the task manager (or the mac equivalent to one). Does such a thing exist on Mac. I know you can click on a program's icon at the bottom to "force quit" if it's not responding, but what do you do if you want to see how much of the computer's memory or cpu capacity is being used at any given time?...

several ways to accomplish this. You can open a terminal window and type 'top'. This will give you the info you want, but it's very unixy and a bit technical. There is a graphical UI for top, which was supplieed with (I think) 10.2 and 10.3 but is NOT available in 10.4, as far as I can see - it's definitely gone from my machine. This is called 'Process Viewer' or 'CPU Monitor' or something like that. The Dev tools also give you something called 'BigTop' which is a much more details graphical interface for top.Graham 04:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
It's called 'Activity Monitor', and it's located in Utilities under Applications. It is still present in Tiger. Bbatsell 06:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and the simple way to just get a list of running applications is to type Command+Option+Escape, which brings up a 'task manager' window. All you can do here though is to force quit an app - it doesn't tell you anything about the memory usage, etc.Graham 04:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Icon Scaling?

In the notable features section, it states that icons can be scaled up to 256x256 pixels. In Finder on Mac OS X Tiger, I'm only able to scale icons to 128x128 pixels. Is this a typo? or am I missing something here? Brianreading 07:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It's my understanding that in Tiger, icns files can support icons up to 256x256, but most applications don't use icons of that size yet as there isn't much need (and they aren't supported on any previous OS). See this Apple Developer article on resolution independence in Tiger. I would say that the text describing the icons could be further clarified, as it's not very clear at the moment. Bbatsell 07:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
At least in Jaguar, there was a hack to double the size of the Genie effect and the result was ugly, as the icon were not meant too be that big. I don't know if it was this 256 px size, though. Reply to David Latapie 19:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The opening sentence currently reads as follows:

"Mac OS X is the latest version of the Macintosh operating system, and is designed and developed by Apple Computer to run on their Macintosh line of personal computers."

I believe this is ambiguous and possibly (though not intentially) misleading because it implies that Mac OS X was developed from previous versions of the Mac OS. OS X certainly is in the Mac OS family (and has replaced OS 9 as the operating system that Apple ships on its Macs), but one could just as easily say that it is a flavor of UNIX, or version of BSD, or a successor to NeXTStep. It has become very uncommon for Apple — or anyone, for that matter — to call the OS "Mac OS" with out the "X" part. I think something like:

"Mac OS X is an operating system designed and developed by Apple Computer to run on modern PowerPC- and Intel-based Macintosh computers."

would be better (as, for one, it provides better context for its role as an operating system by linking to the appropriate article). However, it seems like the current wording has been used for quite a while, so I decided not to change it yet and wanted to elicit comments about it. btm 10:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I think your suggestion for the lead paragraph is logical, but your rewrite is not good either. This would be better:
"Mac OS X is an operating system designed and developed by Apple Computer for their current line of PowerPC Macintosh personal computers...."

It would be wrong to say Intel just yet, because thats only for developers, and is not for the public. So it would be wrong to put it in an encyclopedia. — Wackymacs 11:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)