Talk:MacOS/Archive 8

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

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

This is an archive of entries that had begun in February 2008 through October 2008.

(pronounced /mæk əʊ ɛs tɛn/)

Seems like the last word is closer to 'ten' than X. Maybe I have the lingo wrong, so I did not change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo8rge (talk • contribs) 19:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well yeah, "ten" is correct. That's why it's in the article. Wikipedia does get things right sometimes, you know... ;-) -/- Warren 01:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

X is roman numeral 10. My point is that people I talk to pronounce the X as the letter x, as in "ow es ex". Not a big point but it is an encyclopedia Geo8rge (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but I humbly suggest that you refer these people to the encyclopedia article, rather than expect the article to accommodate these people! MFNickster (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

And the article will now, right where it says it's pronounced "Mac O-S ten", refer you to a page on an Apple Web site where it says you're supposed to pronounce it "Mac O-S ten". The people Geo8rge talks to are not pronouncing it the way Apple says you're supposed to pronounce it, so the Wikipedia shouldn't say it's pronounced the way they pronounce it. Guy Harris (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

So should we say Jaguar or Jag-u-ar? Companies are constantly trying to force people to pronounce things a certain way. If marketing people (of which I am one) would get off their high horses and realize that when you name something ambiguously, people will say it different ways, then we would all have an easier time of it. But for a reference work (which I think Wikipedia is supposed to be) the usage is what is important, not the marketing crap. It is irrelevant what Apple says it should be, what should be reported in a reference work is what people call it. Both ways should be mentioned (then you can say that Apple prefers it this way). Where would the English language (or any language, for that matter, but this is the English section of Wikipedia) if Webster said, this is how it should be said, instead of reporting how people actually used the words. Thou wouldst still speak like unto this ungainly manner! -- Paul123 15 APR 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.3.58 (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the article needs to tell people how to pronounce it. I do think it needs to include the information that the 'X' is in fact a Roman numeral 10. MFNickster (talk) 01:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have never for a moment begun to understand how this pronunciation thing is difficult or unclear for people. I've never once heard anyone say /ˈtʌɪt(ə)l ɪks/ or, when reading the time from a clock with Roman numerals, say "It's /ɛks/ o'clock." This is just not hard. There was Mac OS /eɪt/, then Mac OS /nʌɪn/, then Mac OS /tɛn/. No question. No lack of clarity. Nothing vague or obscure or esoteric. Every single one of the people who say "Mac OS /ɛks/" would never say "It's /ɛks/ o'clock." Since it is apparently so difficult for some people, though, I suggest it 'is' important to include both the pronunciation in the usual place and an explanation of why that pronunciation is correct somewhere in the article. Stephan Leeds (talk) 15:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I always assumed that the X came from X-window, so I always pronounced it as "/ɪks/" and even believed that those guys that pronounced it as "ten" were wrong. Well, now I stand corrected.156.35.192.4 (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

if people (including myself, many people i know and the last Apple store 'genius' I talked to) want to pronounce it as "/ɛks/" it doesn't matter or make us wrong. Its not an issue. OS 7, OS 8 and OS 9 didn't use Roman numerals. NeXT, X-windows and Windows XP all use "/ɛks/" - hope everybody can see why many people don't think OS X is pronounced OS ten? 82.29.114.179 (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

lolz = Microsoft Windows 10p (probably have to be British to get that one) 82.29.114.179 (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Apple calls it "Mac Oh Ess Ten." However anyone else pronounces it, who cares? It's irrelevant to the article. MFNickster (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Question about a sentence in the lead

Unlike its predecessors, Mac OS X is a Unix-based operating system built on technology developed at NeXT through the second half of the 1980s until Apple purchased the company in early 1997.

Was the technology really developed at NeXT through the second half of the 1980s? Or should that be 1990s?

The other option seems suspect: that the technology ceased development in the late 1980s and sat dormant until 1997, at which point Apple builds its new operating system on it?

I don't know enough to confirm this or fix it. Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 09:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I revised the sentence for clarity and moved it to the 'History' section, where it's probably more appropriate. MFNickster (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

MiB and KiB v.s. MB and KB

I note that this article uses “GB” to denote ‘gigabyte’, as in “the new Intel-powered iMacs have 2 GB of RAM”. Other articles on Wikipedia—like Itanium—use “GiB” (for “gibibyte”) instead of “GB” (for “gigabyte”). For authors interested in the terminology standards used on Wikipedia, debate and a vote is ongoing on Talk:MOSNUM regarding a proposal that would deprecate the use of computer terms like “kibibyte” (symbol “KiB”), “mebibyte” (symbol “MiB”), and kibibit (symbol “Kib”). It would no longer be permissible to use terminology like a “a SODIMM card with a capacity of two gibibytes (2 GiB) first became available…” and instead, the terminology currently used by manufacturers of computer equipment and general-circulation computer magazines (“two gigabytes, or 2 GB”) would be used. Voting on the proposal is ongoing here. Please carefully read the proposal before voting one way or the other on it. Greg L (my talk) 05:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Support life cycle

Hi. I'm having a hard time finding out how Apple supports OS X. I can see that Apple stops releasing new versions of each system about two years after they're introduced. Does that mean that it stops patching new security holes in those versions after that date, as well? I know that when Microsoft terminates support for a release, it stops patching security holes. Is it the same for Macs?--Awareshiftjk (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm using Mac OS X Tiger. They stopped making new versions of that when they made the first new version of Leopard a couple months ago. However, there are still security updates that I see from time to time. For example, Security Update 2008-002 was released a couple weeks ago for both Mac OS X Tiger and Leopard. Maybe Apple only supports the two most recent versions? I don't know if there is a time-frame for support. I know Microsoft has support of Windows XP until 2014 (it was increased since not enough people were switching to Vista), and it would be interesting to see if Apple has something similar. Althepal (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms

Criticism of Microsoft Windows, Criticism of Linux but there is no Criticism of Mac, since when did wikipedia give in to fan boys? Can someobody who knows more about Mac please create the article, a short list would be:

Criticisms of the dock (ive read plenty of criticisms, and I have difficulty using it as effectively as a task bar)
Criticisms of the finder Macintosh_Finder#Criticism
Lack of languages
Criticisms of security, or more to the point mac marketing their systems as virus free, but there have been a few mac viruses as well as their failure in hacking competition (only system to be exploited without 3rd party software) that say differently
Pay for bug fixes (e.g their X server has bugs preventing the use of many FOSS programs, but to get bug fixes (not improvements), you have to buy the next version))

--82.35.192.193 (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

~~I'd add the fact that certain versions of OS X came with their firewall turned off, and the fact that Apple makes its users upgrade every two years.~~

What really pisses me off is the inability of certain people here to compromise. They can't have a separate article; they can't have criticism in the article; and they can't even link to criticism. That's some pretty obscene censorship. I'll just put it all back in this article. I know I'll be reverted, but obviously some Mac people here need to learn not to be offended by simple facts. Their trolling isn't confined to this site, of course. I'm not anti-Mac. Mac's have their advantages. But it seems that every time I try to have an open discussion about them, they start trolling me like mad. As a consequence, I think I've grown a bit anti-Mac user over the years. They're somewhat elitist. The real crusaders against the establishment aren't the rich Mac users who troll everyone. They're the people who have the courage to use and develop Linux. That's my two cents.--Knowhands enjoykeep (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your frustration, but I don't think the accusations of censorship are warranted. The main problem with the previous "criticism" section is that the critics don't seem to want to do the research to document their points. MFNickster (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a lie. Most of the points were researched just to make you happy. You then moved the goal post and claimed that the sources were invalid. On another note, I am curious: Do you believe that the material that was removed is false? Are you saying that all Macs came with their firewall turned on? Do you believe that this passage is false:
OS X operating systems have beeen critcised for only offering limited choice of languages - about 20 - in which the interface can be viewed, Apple concentrating on providing only for languages of their most important markets. Rival system Windows is available in numerous languages including many lesser spoken ones.
You removed this passage because the site requires viewers to log-in. Books aren't immediately available to you, either, though. You see, until you stop feeding me all of this bullshit, how do you expect me to go on your little fools-errands? I suppose I could find another source just to show you how wrong you are, but I'm 99% certain -- no 100%, actually -- that you'll just make up another lie to remove the material. I'm not going to give in to your trolling. I know you certainly won't research it, since you don't want it there. Do you see how you this bullshit makes you look?--Knowhands enjoykeep (talk) 14:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for impugning my motives. Calling me a liar is dangerously close to a personal attack. As Warren pointed out, truth is not the criterion for inclusion BUT if you want to include this, use some quotes and make sure it is verifiable. You don't get to force your changes onto the article, there has to be consensus MFNickster (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You gave no citations for the firewall criticism (and, frankly, it doesn't seem like all that damning a criticism -- basically, if true, I'd consider that a bug that was later fixed; but if you can find reliable sources for the criticism, then you could reasonably include it). As for the language criticism, being behind a paywall isn't a reason to reject a source. But it's not necessarily clear that the site you linked to ("Eurolang") qualifies as a reliable source according to wikipedia guidelines. Klausness (talk) 15:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The criticisms are all couched in weasel words like "others have criticized". Who are these "others"? You need to include reliable sources for any criticisms that you add. Klausness (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the reason there's no Criticism of Macintosh article isn't that wikipedia has somehow given in to fan boys. It's simply because no one has created such an article. So if it bothers you, go ahead and create the article (but make sure that all the criticisms in the article are properly sourced). Klausness (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well the way all the other criticism pages were created was, through expansion of the criticisms on the product pages, till it warented its own page, however editors here are clearly hostile to any attempt of criticising their precious mac os x. When a user such as knowhands tries to ad them hurdels are put up by those that know about mac instead of helping people hinder, I have little intention of signing up just to make a page that somebody will mark for deletion anyway.--82.35.192.193 (talk) 23:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I'll confess I am indeed a champion of OS X, but if such an article is created, I will not interfere. Rather, I would insist on a high quality, NPOV, and obsessive referencing (hard to do while staying neutral to competing third parties, i.e. Mac|Life and MacWorld).--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been discussed (Criticisms)

This has already been discussed, and there has already been consensus on a lack of a specific criticism section or article for Mac OS X. The reasons are simply that there are far fewer criticisms about OS X than other popular operating systems, so for the case of this operating system it makes most sense to simply integrate the criticism information where relevant (a preferable option to making separate sections or articles when the relevant info wouldn't be read where it makes sense, something being considered on the Vista article, by the way). Wikipedia doesn't make a page or section for one subject simply because one exists for similar subjects. Althepal (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"...there are far fewer criticisms about OS X than other popular operating systems..."? I'm afraid that does really sound like fanboy POV stuff. I've been using OS X since version 10.0, and there's plenty that can be (and has been) criticized about it. I, for one, would welcome well-sourced criticisms, either in a section of this article or in a separate article. Klausness (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to defend OS X or anything, I'm just explaining a simple observation. How often have you seen news reports complaining about a bad feature in OS X? Or how many dependency problems do you have installing software in OS X compared to Linux? Not to say that OS X is perfect, and I can indeed count many issues with it or things in other operating systems which are better, but nevertheless seeing as the quantity of criticisms (at least among what is found on Wikipedia) on OS X is not sufficient for it to merit an article. If there are real, relevant, NPOV, sourced criticisms about OS X (any problems with security, GUI elements, whatever) out there, and they are found and sourced properly, and it amounts to being sufficient for its own article, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. The only concern I might have is if complaints by PC fans about POV things like "Mac isn't more secure than Windows" or silly stuff like "the shape of the Leopard folder icons look too outdated" would be included in order for the length of an article, and statements like that wouldn't fit in Wikipedia (not proven fact, out-of-the-blue opinion). Like I said, articles and sections for one operating system aren't basis or cause for similar articles and sections to be written for other operating systems. My point is simple and not a result of my personal OS preferences: A criticism article on Mac OS X should only be made due to its own merit (not the problems of other OSes). If there are problems with Mac, fine. But don't say that it needs a criticism section or article just because another OS does. Althepal (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

No, saying that there have been far fewer criticisms of OS X isn't a "fanboy POV". If Althepal were saying, "OS X has fewer criticisms because it's a better operating system", then yeah, that would be "fanboy POV".

You can measure it out the difference by looking at trade publications, web sites, and so on. Compared with Windows, the absolute number of criticisms is significantly smaller, because the absolute number of OS X users is significantly smaller, and the scope of the criticisms against OS X have not been as dramatic, either. There are free software advocates picketing Microsoft events with their BadVista and related campaigns. O'Reilly recently published a book called "Windows Vista Annoyances". I've even seen stories about Vista's problems on the front page of the BBC World News web site.

There's plenty that can be said about OS X (the pinstripe travesty, how badly Classic sucked, slow time to patch security holes, hardware vendor lock-in, cost, lack of support for older verions, lack of support for video cards not declared worthy by Apple, the monothestic developer environment, etc.etc.), but our problem is finding people who can be considered notable critics of these things so that we can cite them on Wikipedia. -/- Warren 07:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

there was a well sourced Criticism of the dock before, but it got removed. AFAICanTell it was removed on the grounds that windows had no similar section. my above criticisms plus the language one, if properly cited would at least warrant a section (perhaps the reverences should be built up here before transferring to the main page tho)--82.35.192.193 (talk) 04:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That particular criticism got moved into Dock (computing), as it pertains to one aspect of the operating system, not the whole thing. That's the catch here -- if you want to see criticism in this specific article, it generally has to apply to all six releases of OS X (or, at the very least, cover more than one release), and it has to transcend a single component. -/- Warren 04:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the layout of the Dock and Finder subheadings is a little awkward, maybe that could be improved? The Usability section is currently very non-specific. It needs to have some specific examples of criticisms. In response to 82.35.192.93, the Dock is not a Taskbar. The two are entirely different concepts. I do not think the Dock is brilliantly designed, but neither do I think that you are trying to use it appropriately. As for viruses, Mac OS X has had NO VIRUSES (Classic had about fifty), ever. There was one virus attempt, and it could perpetuate itself on the wireless intranet, but it just couldn't do anything else. The hacking section: Yes. I agree about that. But it's also fair to say that OS X has had very little attention at all from hackers, apart from in these competitions. You shouldn't use that as an example, though – that was a Safari bug, not an OS X bug. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Semicolons (talk • contribs) 18:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There are no faults with OS X ;-D 82.29.114.179 (talk) 06:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Lots of Criticism to Add

The latest censorship here by Mac users upset me so much that I took some really important time out of my day to research problems with Macs. Despite claims to the contrary, I didn't have to look far. I am sure that they will censor me again, but this time I will not give up without a hell of a fight.

I began by searching for the word "Apple" in the Cert vulnerability database and got 258 hits. A search of "Mac OS X" revealed about 124. These are only the publicly-known vulnerabilities. To quote Macworld, "Sometimes holes are publicly acknowledged; other times only Apple knows about them." (Now watch the Mac users here claim that a database search is somehow original research. Boy, Mac users sure do love censorship, don't they?)

~~Here also are some Mac problems cataloged in "OS X First Aid," by Ted Landau in Macworld, May 2006, Vol. 23, Issue 5:~~

Rosetta Slowdowns All applications have to be rewritten to run natively on Intel processors. A program will likely have been updated to a Universal version, which means that it can run natively both on a PowerPC Mac and on a new Intel Mac. If a program hasn't been updated, OS X will attempt to launch it in a PowerPC-emulation environment called Rosetta. Most programs will run slower in Rosetta than on a comparable PowerPC Mac. (And there's no fix for this except an application update.)

Application Failures Some PowerPC programs won't launch on Intel Macs, even in Rosetta. A few launch successfully but some of their features won't work. At press time, this included important programs such as Microsoft's Virtual PC, and disk-repair programs such as Alsoft's DiskWarrior and Micromat's TechTool Pro (see "The Mac Medicine Cabinet"). You shouldn't even attempt to use a non-updated disk-repair program on an Intel Mac. Wait for the software company to release an Intel-compatible upgrade.

The Classic Vanishing Act The Classic environment no longer exists on Intel-based Macs; there is no Apple-supported way to run Classic programs anymore — period.

Drives That Won't Boot If you want to be able to boot from an external drive when you're using an Intel-based Mac, you should reformat the drive, using Disk Utility's Partition tab. Click on the Options button and select GUID Partition Scheme (see "Reformatting Required"). This option is available only when you run Disk Utility on an Intel-based Mac and when you select an external volume. You need to do this only if you want to be able to boot from the volume.

Plug-in Glitches When you're using the Safari Web browser, you may get an alert that says you need a plug-in file — even though you know you have the plug-in already. This is because Safari is running as a Universal program, but many plug-ins themselves are still PowerPC-only software. The best solution is to get an updated version of the plug-in you're having trouble with — which will hopefully be available by the time you read this. If one doesn't exist, here's a workaround
~~Here are some of the issues with OS 10.2 Jaguar cataloged in "Exterminate OS X Troubles" by Ted Landau in Macworld, Feb. 2003, Vol. 20, Issue 2:~~
Problem: Permissions Woes
If you've ever tried to open, copy, move, or delete a file in OS X but were unable because you didn't have "sufficient permission" or didn't "own" the file, welcome to the club. This is the most frequent source of frustration in OS X.
Problem: Login Crashes
If you've made it as far as the Login window, you may think you're past all the possible obstacles to a successful start. Not quite--you can still crash. The culprit may be a rogue item on the list in the Login Items pane in System Preferences. (These are the items you've set to launch automatically each time you log in.) This sort of problem is likeliest immediately after you update to a new version of OS X, causing a conflict between an existing login item and the update.
Problem: Printer-Driver Incompatibility
In Jaguar, Apple replaced OS X's entire printing architecture with the Unix-based printing architecture called CUPS, or Command Unix Printing Software (see "Jaguar's Printing Power," Secrets, elsewhere in this issue).
If you don't have printing problems, you may not notice the difference. OS X 10.2 still uses Print Center, and the user interface is very similar. But everything else is different.
The move to the new architecture remedied a number of printing problems that plagued OS X 10.1. Unfortunately, it also introduced some problems. Many printer drivers that worked in OS X 10.1 don't work in Jaguar. Symptoms vary from a simple failure to print a document to Print Center crashing each time you select a printer.
~~From "Prevent Mac Disasters," By Rob Griffiths, Macworld, Feb. 2005, Vol. 22, Issue 2:~~
REPAIR PERMISSIONS
WHY: OS X uses a permissions system to determine which programs and folders a user can access. Sometimes these permissions are mistakenly modified, and you can't access folders or programs. Repairing disk permissions restores the correct permissions, allowing access to folders and applications.
WHEN: Depending on your download habits, as often as once a week or even every day.
WHO: Anyone who regularly downloads and installs trialware and shareware
• Say your word processor tells you that it can't save the file you've been working on for an hour, that your e-mail program won't let you change its preferences, or that you can't even launch an application. These are all symptoms of permissions gone bad.
Different files and folders at different locations on your hard drive have different permissions (see "Who's in Charge?"). Although OS X's permissions system works well most of the time, default permissions can become corrupt. This happens most often after you install software that includes system-level components, or when you update the OS.
To repair broken permissions, launch Disk Utility (Applications: Utilities), click on your startup disk, and then click on Repair Disk Permissions. (Don't bother running Verify Disk Permissions--it takes just as long as Repair Disk Permissions, and if it tells you that it found permissions errors, you'll then want to run Repair Disk Permissions anyway.)
This process can take as long as 15 minutes; while Repair Disk Permissions is working, you'll see messages about items it has corrected (see "Permissions Granted!"). When it's done, any permissions issues that affect system-level files and folders on your machine will have been resolved. (For an apparent exception, see "Even Perfect Disks Have Imperfect Permissions.")
Repair Disk Permissions uses internal data, as well as data in the top-level Library: Receipts folder, which keeps track of software you've installed. Never delete anything from this folder.
Your permissions-repair schedule should depend on how often you run installers. The more often you run installers, the more often you should run Repair Disk Permissions. I recommend that you repair permissions weekly if you download and install a few programs a week.
~~From "Windows, Mac, and Linux PCs on the Same Network," PC World; Dec. 2005, Vol. 23 Issue 12, pp. 180-182, 3p, 4c:~~
NETWORKING TIPS
Unfortunately, sharing files, printers, Internet connections, and other resources on machines running Windows, OS X, and Linux isn't always easy. The following tips will help you get these operating systems to play nicely with each other.
First, update your software. For example, early versions of Mac OS X (up to and including 10.2) let you connect to Windows files and printers, but only with major coaxing. Later versions of OS X use Windows' Server Message Block protocol to facilitate connecting to and sharing with non-Macintosh PCs. In several important ways, however, OS X's support for Windows' shared resources remains broken (find workarounds for OS X version 10.4.2--the most recent, at this writing--near the end of the next page).
~~From "Apple's 'Fraction of a Fraction'" by Tom Yager in Infoworld, (06-19-06), p. 18:~~
APPLE EXTENDED THE COURTESY OF MEETING WITH me one day after my column on the closing of the OS X x86 kernel source code was published online. To sum up Apple's objections, they felt I had given a year-old story a fresh coat of paint and sensationalized it for an audience that wasn't affected by it. Yet no story is more timely, or more broadly relevant, than this one.
The meeting started sliding downhill when Apple asked, "Has anybody ever written to you about this? How many people actually recompile their OS X kernels?" I do, for one. I rattled off some of those groups that value open source in its fullest sense. I included academia, high performance and high throughput computing experts, and shops that want to roll in system-level enhancements before Apple gets around to packaging them.
Apple pushed back, saying that as eclectic as my readership is, the subset I described is only a "fraction of a fraction" of the geeks (Apple's word) who are my regular readers. Issues that matter to so few, and to me, shouldn't be projected to a larger audience in 48-point type. I go on the defensive whenever a vendor suggests that any portion of my readership is an underclass because of its numbers. It is our fraction of a fraction that is the bellwether for the next leading edge. My readers don't gaze at my torch or carry others'. They're too busy lighting new ones.
It strikes me as odd that anyone at Apple could fail to connect with that ideal or see its economic practicality.
Before consummate wealth and success, Steve Jobs was the poster boy for that misunderstood fraction-of-a-fraction to which my erstwhile handlers referred. Jobs was odd man out for being inventive, curious, tenacious, fearless, opinionated. and insatiable. These ingredients make an innovator. Jobs built a company, then a culture, and then a product line that reflected the future he was certain would unfold, and he was determined to get there first. Jobs had the audacity to behave as though his dreams represented the certain future, and he was blessed with just enough money, patience, and raw materials (including open source) to prove his point. Those in his employ and the tiny fraction of computer owners who were Mac users thought that innovation was a hell of a fine foundation for a company. Financial analysts were unanimous in their judgment that innovation was a fine way to take a company to hell.
The Mac platform is an overflowing basket of raw materials for innovators and creators of all stripes. It's what Steve Jobs would fantasize about if he still worked out of his garage, and you can bet that he'd be livid to find that the vendor locked some portion of his chosen platform behind a gate without a word of notice or explanation.
I'm not so much concerned about the single issue of Apple's sandbagging its open source commitment for six months (and counting). The kernel will open up again, this tempest will fade away, and I'll be glad for it. What will continue to concern me so deeply is that Apple thought it would be OK, that nobody would notice or care, if it back-burnered its commitment to keep its open source Darwin OS in lockstep and binary compatibility with OS X. I noticed. My story got such wide attention because lots of people — whose numbers well exceed that fraction of a fraction who would tinker with or compile an OS kernel — understand why breaking a promise, and saying nothing about it, matters. It's not about code. It's about character.
~~From "Getting Better all the Time," Macworld; Feb. 2005, Vol. 22 Issue 2, p14-15, 2p, 2c:~~
4 Things to Remember When Updating
• Make sure your hard drive is in good shape. Boot from another drive or use your OS X Installer CD or DVD, and then run Disk Utility's Repair Disk Permissions feature. You can also use a third-party utility such as Alsoft's DiskWarrior (www.alsoft.com).
• Back up. It's rare that an update will result in a loss of data, but it has happened. A few years back, an iTunes installer had a bug that erased some users' hard drives. Be safe, not sorry.
• Take it slow. Although you may be tempted to install every update immediately, sometimes it's better to be patient. When an update is released, consider holding off for a few days and keeping an eye on Web sites such as MacFixIt.com (full disclosure--I work there, too) and MacInTouch.com, to see if other people experience problems.
• Repair disk permissions. After you've finished installing and restarted your Mac (if necessary), run Disk Utility's RepairDisk Permission function on the updated drive to make sure all system files have the correct privileges. (If you're a power user who's changed permissions on system-level files, you may want to skip this step, or at least make a note to change back those settings afterwards.)
I searched EBSCO's MAS Ultra for these articles. They were all at the top of the search results! That was fucking easy. What do you guys mean that there isn't any criticism of Macs? You just needed to search the internet, that's all.

~~Of course, criticism of the Dock, Cheetah 10.0, and language support will also have to be merged into the entry.--Knowhands enjoykeep (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)~~

First of all, continuing to accuse other editors of censorship, and of saying things they haven't said, when no such things have happened, isn't going to endear yourself to anybody. If you want to have a positive experience with editing Wikipedia, I suggest an immediate change in your approach and behaviour.

Second, I find it telling that, given all your research here, you weren't able to produce sources for the two pieces of criticism that you tried to edit-war into the article last month.

Third, Wikipedia isn't an instruction manual or help guide for OS X. See WP:NOTGUIDE. A large part of your above text reads like a help guide or suggestions (especially the Repair Permissions, backup and "take it slow" stuff), as opposed to criticism.

Fourth, criticism of Rosetta goes in Rosetta (binary translation software), as it does not cover all releases of OS X. Criticism of the new print subsystem in 10.2 probably goes in Mac OS X v10.2, since it's not clear that changing print architectures is a significant enough criticism to warrant discussing it in this article. Windows 95, Windows 2000 and Windows Vista introduced new print architectures which broke some old printer drivers, but you don't see that mentioned in Microsoft Windows, do you? Bugs in Safari, if significant, belong in the Safari (web browser) article. Criticism of source-code releases of Darwin, or lack thereof, go in Darwin (operating system). As for the rest (Login failures, etc.), any argument along the lines of "OS X might crash if you're using incompatible or damaged software" doesn't belong here. You may as well be arguing that the BMW Z3 article should state that putting diesel fuel into the Z3 will damage the car.

Out of all your examples, the only thing that may constitute valid criticism is the notion that newer versions of OS X should continue to run software written for older versions of the operating system without issue. But even then, there's a problem -- every release of operating system has the exact same problem, and nobody is stupid enough to make a claim that their operating system will be able to run all older software forever without a recompile. -/- Warren 05:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Trying to censor an educational site is not looked on favorably by me. I'm not going to be happy watching you remove criticism from this entry while many of you add it to Windows entries. As a Mac user, you know about many of the flaws of the system, so you should be adding them yourself. If you are going to be so biased, I suggest you not edit on Wikipedia.
Windows 95, Windows 2000 and Windows Vista introduced new print architectures which broke some old printer drivers, but you don't see that mentioned in Microsoft Windows, do you?
Mac OS X is a version of the Macintosh operating system, just like Windows 2000 or Vista.

Every type of criticism you can find in the Windows XP article should be included in this one. Without a link to Rosetta, how are users supposed to find out about the problems. Those articles I cited referred to the problems as "OS X First Aid," "Windows, Mac, and Linux PCs on the Same Network," and "Mac Disasters," so whether you have a personal preference of calling them version issues is your own problem.--Knowhands enjoykeep (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It isn't censorship -- it's out of scope for Wikipedia. WP:NOT, which is official policy, is clear about this. Also, per WP:SYN, which is also official policy, you can't simply take the existence of troubleshooting guides and use that as a rationale for writing criticism sections. That's not how we do things on Wikipedia. If you continue to edit in a fashion which contravenes these or other Wikipedia policies, you will be stopped. I've given you plenty of things that you can write about in terms of criticism, but you've instead chosen to repeatedly add text into the article that you cannot provide a reliable, verifiable source for. STOP IT. Follow Wikipedia's content policies, or LEAVE. -/- Warren 16:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You aren't a reliable source. Whatever you want to call them, they're problems. If you don't like to call them criticism, then I can rename the subsection to "Flaws." Your fellow Mac fans at Macworld, no less, admit as much.--Knowhands enjoykeep (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You aren't a reliable source. The question isn't whether Warren is a reliable source. The question is whether you can find relibale sources (in the sense of Wikipedia:Reliable sources) for the criticisms that you want to include. Some of the things you quote at length above are from relibale sources, but they're mostly trubleshooting tips (which are not appropriate for wikipedia) or bugs that relate to specific versions of OS X (which might be appropriate for one of the version-specific articles, but not for the general article). If you can find reliable sources for criticisms of OS X in general (rather than specific versions), then those criticisms would be appropriate for inclusion here. Klausness (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Then most of the criticism of Windows XP should also be removed, since it is mostly specific to individual service packs. Please do that, now. Each service pack is actually a new version of Windows. For example, Windows XP service pack two is version 5.1.2.--Knowhands enjoykeep (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the analogous situation for Windows would be Windows NT vs. Windows 2000 vs. Windows XP vs. Vista. They're all built on the same core technology (unlike Windows 98 and earlier), but they're different enough to all have their own articles. The same thing is true for the different versions of OS X. The 10.x version numbers are just about marketing. The equivalent of windows service packs are the third digit releases (e.g. 10.4.1, 10.4.2, etc.). Klausness (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Knowhands enjoykeep, you obviously don't know much about Mac OS X, Wikipedia standards, and POV rules. First of all, Mac OS X is a group of operating systems (so far, 6 different ones), just like Microsoft Windows is a group of operating systems (also six major ones). Mac OS had a similar name, but it is separate (the Mac OS Classic group of OSes, System 1 through System 9, compared to the OS X group, Mac OS X v10.0 though Mac OS X v10.5.) Since it is not a specific OS, you can't write criticisms on its article which only relate to one version (like Panther), which is the exact same reason Microsoft Windows, with all its flaws, doesn't have a criticism section in its article. Second of all, Wikipedia standards about criticisms state that they have be be complained about as significant by a reputable source, not just listed as a flaw. The exact same standards apply to Windows and Mac articles. Finally, the types of things you complain about here are nothing compared to what is really complained about in, say, the Vista article. For example, you would have to say Vista breaks compatibility with Windows 95 software or that Vista requires disk defragmentation. No, instead you see real things, like the fact that Vista was incompatible with almost all new hardware when it came to market and is still to bloated to be installed on the vast majority of computers, or that UAC was specifically made to be overly-annoying. Or, made by real critics, people complained about XP's making it very easy to install viruses, or that Windows XP's activation could be time consuming or not always work right. To try to force a criticism section, which is simply a group of relatively minor flaws, into an article about a group of operating systems is just childish. And by the way, nobody said Mac OS X doesn't have security holes... ALL operating systems have these problems which are discovered and fixed. Mac OS X is just more secure in other, more common areas like with viruses or spyware. Oh, and just another note of proving how ignorant you are of OS X... you are just letting the name fool you. Every version is prefixed with "10" but it's not the same OS... it's the same type of OS. Windows service packs are comparable to updates like Mac OS X 10.5.1 to 10.5.2. Althepal (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, instead you see real things, like the fact that Vista was incompatible with almost all new hardware when it came to market and is still to bloated to be installed on the vast majority of computers, or that UAC was specifically made to be overly-annoying.
You have no idea what you're talking about. I dual-boot Vista with XP and it works with all of my hardware. Some of it is 10 years old. Microsoft wrote patches specific to my hardware so that it wouldn't crash. Vista has sophisticated automatic diagnostics that told me what I needed to install. It's slightly slower but works fine.
People complained about XP's making it very easy to install viruses, or that Windows XP's activation could be time consuming or not always work right.
I have installed Windows XP dozens of times on different comptuers. Each time activation took about five seconds. Now I can tell that you know almost nothing about Windows. Yet, I noticed you've been adding criticism to Windows articles, including this image. Perhaps you have the two of us mixed up when it comes to POV. If you think that complete system breakdowns, having to pay for new hardware just to keep using Mac OS X, and major security vulnerabilities are "minor flaws," then you've got some serious issues with bias. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you worked for Apple.

Mac OS X is not a group of operating systems. They are minor revisions of the the same system. Also, most of the criticism I have found applies to multiple versions of Mac OS X. For example, Rosetta isn't just used in Jaguar. I am not an expert in Mac OS X because I don't use it. I think it's a piece of crap and that anyone who pays for it is a sucker. I've certainly used it and read about it. That's all that counts.--Knowhands enjoykeep (talk) 17:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Mac OS X is not a group of operating systems. They are minor revisions of the the same system. Sorry, but you're just mistaken there. As I mentioned above, the difference between 10.4 and 10.5 is like the difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP. Both are based on the same core technology, but they're definitely major OS revisions. That's why there are separate articles for Windows 2000 and Windows XP, and that's why there are different articles for Tiger (10.4) and Leopard (10.5).

I've certainly used it and read about it. That's all that counts. Sorry, no. In fact, that's completely irrelevant for wikipedia. The content you add has to be based on reliable sources, not your own personal experience. Wikipedia policy is very clear about this. If you don't like it, you're free to try to get wikipedia policy changed. Klausness (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

section break

Knowhands enjoykeep: I've used Windows (95, ME, XP) as my primary OS since the mid-90s. I still use XP a lot, and I'm an XP power-user, and I known what I'm talking about. And I've used Vista, too. Last year I tried a Mac and have been very impressed (so I made OS X my primary OS, XP secondary). You know what, maybe you've never had problems, but that doesn't mean nobody had problems. I've never had problems with Rosetta, for example, but I HAVE had problems with XP activation, and I know lots of people who got viruses. Stop letting your sheer hatred for Mac ("I think it's a piece of crap and anyone who pays for it is a sucker.") blind you to the neutrality of the articles. I can tell you straight off that I can be much more productive on my Mac system than my Windows one simply because OS X excels is GUI simplicity, lack of a need for anti-virus software, and I'm sure it will always work (one time I turned on my XP machine and it just stopped working and said that there was a non-existent hardware change and I needed to re-activate yet I had already used the activation key the maximum amount of times... yeah, no problems there). Althepal (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're a power user, then you shouldn't have to use Mac OS X. If you're experienced, then you can easily disinfect your computer and fix bugs. Almost all of the bugs and viruses I've had in Windows were my fault, anyway. I've hardened my XP installation to the point that viruses can't really infect it, either. For example, the Internet Explorer instance I'm using right now is running at a low privilege level. As for productivity, you can be just as productive in Windows as on a Mac. It's the user — not the software — that matters. Instead of buying third-party apps like Quicksilver, you can use built-in Windows features like keyboard shortcuts for links. As me how if you want to know. Apple's main selling point has always been ease-of-use, even though learning a completely-new operating system is never easy. The only people who actually need to use Macs are in the publishing and movie industries. I guess Macs handle fonts better and Final Cut renders movies better, and that's pretty much it. All the other important apps have been ported to Windows. I also boot Linux, and that gives me all the flexibility I'll ever need. The only people it seems who actually buy Macs have a lot of money they need to get rid of. Money isn't an issue for them. Cost was an issue for me, and I built my computer from parts and got all of my software for free. That saved me quite a bit of money.--Knowhands enjoykeep (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Both of you please stop discussing your personal opinions and experiences of Windows/Mac. Neither are relevant. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Knowhands enjoykeep, please stop focusing on me as an individual and pushing your opinions onto me. My Windows computer is probably the most secure and stable Windows XP computer in my neighborhood (I do regular maintenance, use the best security software, and use safe web browsing techniques, for example), but that doesn't mean I can't like Mac better. And I'm plenty productive in Windows, I just like Mac better. Stop with your personal opinions and stuff ("lot of money they need to get rid of") as that just makes you less credible. Macs are powerful computers, and hardware-wise they are the best of the best. They have similar specs as more expensive PCs, but they have the best hardware that lasts the longest (internal serge protectors and high-quality monitors, for example). As far as software is concerned, iWork and Mac OS X is a fraction of the cost of Office or Windows. And when it comes to system reliability, each user themself can decide what they think is a waste of money. But if I were you, I'd stop writing stuff here. You're just making yourself look like an annoying Mac-hating crybaby, when you're really just trying to improve the article with good faith and a little ignorance. Althepal (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If I'm anoying or a crybaby, it's a small price to pay for doing the right thing. It's far better than tearing pages out of an encyclopedia because they upset me. (That's kind of pathetic if you ask me.) I don't "hate" Mac OS X. I hate the bias of this article. It pisses me off and I'm not afraid of you or anyone else. I don't care if you or anyone else doesn't like me. I'm here to do the right thing and I don't think you can stop me from doing that.--Knowhands enjoykeep (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me repeat what AlistairMcMillan said: Both of you please stop discussing your personal opinions and experiences of Windows/Mac. Neither are relevant. Klausness (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. Sorry. (Just kind of hard to ignore near personal attacks.) I just want to reiterate: this article is not biased simply because you don't understand the operating system or Wikipedia standards. People who are on this page are pretty neutral and strive to make the article so. Assume good faith. About the criticism section restored to the article, it doesn't belong because it is specific to the dock (individual versions of os x, already listed in the dock article, no matter how superficial the criticisms are), and because the language thing is pretty insignificant (limited language support is a significant OS flaw? does it apply equally to all versions of os x?) Althepal (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm going to have to disagree with you. The Dock criticism DOES belong in this article. The Dock is a feature of every version of Mac OS X and it has been extensively criticised from the very first public releases of Mac OS X. And please understand, you don't hear much basic criticism of the dock these days because it hasn't changed that much and everyone has already made the criticisms. Quoting Siracusa: "This isn't talked about much these days, but all the old power-user complaints about the Dock still have merit..."[1] AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of the dock does belong in the article about the dock. I don't think anybody's going to disagree with that. I think that the text we put in this article should be a brief summation of that criticism. Of course, we've tried that (and just about everything from having the full criticism to nothing at all), but we've yet to find a compromise that makes everyone happy. -/- Warren 21:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, what happened to the note in the text, where it mentions the dock as a feature of OS X (as well as for Finder), I put a brief summary of the criticism there. I can understand mentioning criticism, but doesn't it belong where the dock is mentioned? Anyway, I understand about the Dock criticism in the Mac OS X article, but what about that language? Wouldn't something more general like "limited language support" be reasonable? Again, if different versions of OS X have different language support, something like that belongs only in the appropriate version's article. If all versions of OS X have the same number of language support, list them here and note that it is more limited than for Linux or Windows. There isn't enough general OS X criticism around for a special section. Althepal (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticism edits on 09 May 2008

First, "Flaws" is POV and not welcome on Wikipedia. Alastair had said this in a edit summary a few days ago and I said it again today. If it's changed back it will be reported for action as it's against policy and you've been warned.

Second, exact, word for word criticism's in multiple articles in discouraged under the MOS. It's sloppy and unencyclopedic. The links to the relevant section on the relevant article is appropriate and fulfils the neutrality required. Changing back will violate MOS and is not recommended.

Third, the Intel Transition criticism has been merged into the relevant pre-existing section of the article as recommended under NPOV policy and the MOS. Criticisms sections are generally discouraged except where necessary. The Intel Transition section under criticism was unnecessary since there was already a section in the article on it where the criticism should have been merged into it (as I've done). Plus, a few of the the main points of the criticism section were already covered:

Main points:

1) Rewrite some apps for Intel (I merged into the main section and added a bit)
2) Rosetta - slower (This was already in the main section)
3) Some apps wouldn’t run at all (Added)
4) PowerPC drive booting (Added)
5) Safari plug-ins (Added, but be advised that information is likely out of date. The common plug ins have been updated since the print of the ref used for the criticism)

Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms section needs serious cleanup

The criticisms section needs some serious cleanup (due to the little mess made by one contrary editor). Granted, he has some valid points that there were negative unmentioned aspects of the operating system, but reducing the article's quality via edit wars and going around Wikipedia policy is not the way to do it. Criticism sections, in general, are supposed to be avoided if at all possible in Wikipedia articles. For some articles on operating systems with significant amounts of criticism that would be difficult to put inline with the text, or indeed where criticism itself has become a notable aspect of the operating system, there is no work around. However, that isn't the case for this article. I'm going to put my suggestions into the talk page and not be bold myself in the article, so as to avoid confrontation and edit wars, and rather encourage discussion and peaceful consensus on all sides. I would like to make a note to User:Knowhands enjoykeep, that he is free to put his suggestions on the talk page, but he should avoid labeling a consensus as 'mob rule' and continuing his article ownership and edit war, as that would likely result in his permanent blockage from editing Wikipedia. Anyway, here's what needs to be done to bring the article up to Wikipedia quality standards:

The Finder: Knock out link/sub-section. It's already mentioned in line in the article.
The Dock: Restore in-line note of criticism to the Prominent features section and knock out link.
Permissions: A consensus needs to be made on if this is significant and its significance applies to all versions of OS X. I think it is comparable to writing in the Microsoft Windows article that Windows requires defragmentation, and I personally would vote to exclude mention of it since it is just a maintenance tip. However, if consensus is that it belongs here than it could remain as the Criticisms section, or preferably find some way to mention the fact that permissions should be regularly repaired in the article itself. Either way, as it stands, the paragraph on permissions is misleading and grossly over-states the issue.
Languages: There is a whole section listing all the languages. Readers themselves can determine if this is too limited, but still a note that many find this to be limited could be included in its proper section there. Catalan specifically is to narrow, and should not be specially mentioned (since it is not more significant than any other language not supported).
Usability issues: Already taken care of by the Finder and Dock. Anyway, almost every authority on the subject says OS X is more user friendly than OS 9.

That's it. I'll leave it up to the Wikipedia community now. Althepal (talk) 02:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

1) The links and sub-sections for the finder and dock satisfy MOS and NPOV policy.

2) Permissions could be significant if there were more verifiable references that this is an actual common problem to the degree it's made out to be. I personally haven't seen any such references, but if they can be found it should obviously stay, but as of now I'm not too sure on its notability.

3) As for languages, I again removed that dubious paragraph as the reference is not viewable and thus doesn't belong. However, the Catalan language bit is notable or sourced and should stay, al though it'd be preferable to merge it into the relevant language provision section versus having it in an non-neutral criticisms section.

4) Lastly the small bit on usability is sourced and was discussed a while back as being notable enough to keep on so let's not revisit that. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The language reference is viewable, not just by everyone. Go read a reputable writer's manual from the MLA or the APA and see for yourself. People cite journals, books, speeches, original interviews, etc. in their work. None of these are viewable on Google.

Also, any attempts to intimidate me will fail. I am not afraid of anyone on this site. I don't care if I am blocked or even if all of my contributions are lost. All I care about is doing the right thing. So long as I do that, I will be happy. And I will continue to do the right thing regardless of what happens.--Knowhands enjoykeep (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Much as I hate to agree with you, given your history of disruptive edits, I do agree that the viewability of your language reference is irrelevant. References must be from notable sources, but those sources definitely do not have to be freely viewable on line. MLA and APA recommendations are not necessarily relevant here, but this is also wikipedia policy for references. I'm not necessarily convinced that the source you're citing is a reliable source according to wikipedia standards, but the general viewability of the reference is not relevant. The main problem I see with the lack of viewability here is that you have previously appeared to misinterpret the content of some references that you have cited, so I wonder whether your reference actually says what you believe it does. Klausness (talk) 09:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

~~Thank you. But I did not write the paragraph in question. I saw it being removed by another editor. That's how I found out about it.--Knowhands enjoykeep (talk) 10:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)~~

Sorry, so you basically have no idea what the original source says and no idea whether the original paragraph represents the source accurately at all, you just decided to restore it because you saw someone had removed it? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Nja247, on usability there is no need for a redundant note. It is already taken care of where applicable in the article, they are based on specific versions of Mac OS X (which had gui changes before and after), and in the thing by Matthew Paul Thomas, it doesn't look like he knows what he's doing. Anyway, not immediately having a perfect power-user-like grasp on a new GUI isn't saying much. Althepal (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If cited sources are discussing specific versions then make that clear in the paragraph. Please stop suggesting that criticism expires after a certain date. Even if Apple fix issues in the next major release, that does not mean they no longer exist in the affected release. And frankly, your condescending remarks about MPT leave me speechless. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I call it like I see it. This article is about Mac OS X, not Mac OS X v10.3. If you mention that it is in regards to a specific version, then fine. But it best belongs in its rightful article. Althepal (talk) 18:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm thick, but APA and MLA, et al don't really apply to online sources on Wikipedia as there's a specific way online sources are to be sourced. Regardless, the paragraph in question is quite dubious without verification as it appears to be someone's personal opinion without notability (if it even exists). There are specific reasons for verifiability of sources WP:V. Even in the case of books sourced under MLA or APA someone can, in theory, go to the library or buy the book and verify the source for accuracy. That is not possible here. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The Permissions section should definitely be changed. Incorrect permissions do not usually cause problems (in my experience), and most users do not install software all the time, so permissions will not usually get messed up. I personally think the sources referenced are a little bit... hyperbolical? Non-representative? I also thought permissions was a Unix thing, and the reason your system breaks down if you try and set you entire hard drive to read/write is because of the Unix base. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.—[semicolons]— 18:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Subsection removed

I just removed this from the "Criticisms" section:

Usability Issues
Mac OS X introduced significant changes to the user interface from that of its predecessor, Mac OS 9, and some users (including Bruce Tognazzini, founder of the original Apple Human Interface Group) have claimed that Mac OS X represented a step backwards in usability.^[1]^[2]

Of the two references cited, the Tognazzini quote is from eight years ago, and the other is a four-year old rant on a blog by someone called "Matthew Paul Thomas". (sorry, but I've never heard of him.) I can't see how this is either noteworthy or relevant. It would be like saying there are problems with Windows Vista because Windows Me was ill-conceived. Perhaps this could be moved to a "history" section somewhere? -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 13:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

So what if it's from eight years ago? This is an article about the entirety of Mac OS X, from its inception to now. We don't leave out historical details or criticism simply because things may have changed since then. -/- Warren 16:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've clarified the section to indicate that the remarks related to version 10.0. Who does "we" refer to by the way? Is the continued accretion of obsolete remarks some sort of official Wikipedia policy? -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 20:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Matthew Paul Thomas is user:mpt. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, 10.0 is quite different from 10.5 in terms of my impressions about usability, and I don't think a lot of people would regard 10.5 to be on the same level as 10.0 either. Also, aside from Tognazzini, I've never heard of anyone claiming that Mac OS X is not user-friendly or isn't usable. If we were to follow the undue weight guideline, we'd probably have to reduce discussion of his very old viewpoint to just one word. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 02:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In fact, Tognazzini himself said in 2004 that OS X 10.3 was superior to Mac OS 9 and Windows XP. I really don't see how an 8-year-old opinion that was changed 4 years ago is relevant to this article any more. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 08:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Tog also reaffirms his criticism of the Dock in that article. What you are claiming is precisely the opposite of what he actually said!

What is wrong with you people? This is the Mac OS X page. The Dock (Mac OS X) has it's own page. Now do me a favour and read the first paragraph of Tognazzini's article. Here's the link again. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 11:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with you? The article is subtitled "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly." and as I said before the "Bad" section of the article is larger section by a large margin. Specifically about the dock he uses the words "its general uselessness" and refers readers to an article called "The Top 9 Reasons the Dock Still Sucks". Doesn't that sound like criticism? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So you reckon the fact that he says Mac OS X is better than OS 9 in the first paragraph is somehow negated by the number of words he uses in some other part of the article? Are you having problems with the longer words like "outperforming"? Maybe you find counting words easier than reading them? Or are you just trolling? -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 22:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Windows Vista is undeniably better than Windows 95. Given the choice I'd rather use neither. I'll ignore the rest of your comment, except to point you to WP:CIVIL. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It is also perfectly fine for this article to discuss things that are now "in the past". We already talk about hardware support for older releases of OS X, we cover Marklar as a pre-amble to the Intel transition. Heck, we cover the Intel transition, and that's over, too, right? Nobody would dare to remove this information from the article because it is important to describing the entirety of this thing called "Mac OS X". When you have the writer of the original interface guidelines for Mac OS X's predecessor, criticising its user interface at the time of its release, and then reaffirming that criticism four years later, is a really compelling case to include such criticism in the main article, instead of just in Mac OS X v10.0. Warren -talk- 09:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

M1ss1ontomars2k4, there are few people on this planet more qualified to criticise the usability aspects of Mac OS X than Tog. Whether any of us agree with him or not (and by extension, whether you've heard that criticism or not) isn't relevant. It'd be like arguing for removing a negative Siskel & Ebert review from an article on a movie because it happens to be critical, in spite of their recognition as pre-eminent movie critics. Warren -talk- 09:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Mac OS X 10.6 (Snow Leopard?)

I've heard small bits of rumors surfacing these last few days about Mac OS X 10.6, and that the current development name is 'Snow Leopard'. Does anything have anything to contribute? I doubt a couple of rumors are enough to start and article, but with the world wide developers conference (WWDC) just around the corner, there might be a bit more information coming soon. --Stozball (talk) 09:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Since this is Wikipeda and not Rumorpedia, we'll wait until Monday and update the article then when we actually has any information.130.239.40.177 (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I suspect the reports are factual, but there's no harm in waiting for official confirmation. In fact, Apple is almost defiantly going to announce 10.6 there, seeing as (judging from Apple's past) they should have announced it last MacWorld, and AppleRumors.com are pretty often correct.... just "Snow Leopard"? If indeed this is going to be a simple maintenance upgrade, I guess the name fits, but I was thinking "Cougar". Hope we'll be able to make a Mac OS 11 article soon, an OS that is completely amazing in every way... *sigh* Anyway, we can wait for WWDC before starting something that may not really be the case. Althepal (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Digression much? lol! TrevorLSciAct (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

OS X

With the recent decision to refer to the iPhone OS as "OS X iPhone" and the numerous shortening of "Mac OS X Leopard" to "OS X Leopard" would it be appropriate to have an OS X article, and talk about both the mobile and desktop versions with full articles for the desktop version (Mac OS X... for now anyway) and OS X iPhone? TrevorLSciAct (talk) 06:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It's still named and promoted as Mac OS X. Apple has been talking about Mac OS X as OS X many times before, just as they used talked about Mac OS 9 as OS 9. 85.225.115.108 (talk) 08:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I know, my point is maybe have an OS X article that talks about the architecture of both OSes, and then have two articles, one for Mac OS X, one for OS X iPhone. TrevorLSciAct (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

OS X ≠ UNIX

I noticed that the infobox for this entry claims that OS X is a part of the "UNIX family." There's a link from it saying that Apple got it "certified" as such. But I looked at the Linux and BSD entries and they say that they're only "UNIX like."

~~This strikes me as very odd since Linux — and particularly BSD — are far more similar to UNIX than OS X.~~

UNIX didn't use file extensions

UNIX didn't have directories like Applications, and Documents

UNIX didn't use the HFS+ file system

MAC OS X doesn't use /etc/init.d

MAC OS X doesn't use the X Window System
--Hello. I'm new here, but I'm sure I can help out. (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
[banned user Primetime]

This is from the current Wikipedia article on Unix

The present owner of the trademark UNIX® is The Open Group, an industry standards consortium. Only systems fully compliant with and certified to the Single UNIX Specification qualify as "UNIX®" (others are called "Unix system-like" or "Unix-like").

By decree of The Open Group, the term "UNIX®" refers more to a class of operating systems than to a specific implementation of an operating system; those operating systems which meet The Open Group's Single UNIX Specification should be able to bear the UNIX® 98 or UNIX® 03 trademarks today, after the operating system's vendor pays a fee to The Open Group. Systems licensed to use the UNIX® trademark include AIX, HP-UX, IRIX, Solaris, Tru64 (formerly "Digital UNIX"), A/UX, Mac OS X 10.5 on Intel platforms,^[3] and a part of z/OS.

—Epastore (talk) 04:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that they specify only the Intel version of Leopard as meeting the Single Unix Specification. Does that mean PowerPC Leopard is still "Unix-like"? MFNickster (talk) 04:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

cc, the original C compiler for System V UNIX, used a.out as the default output file, which has a file extension. It also took as input files with ".c" as an extension. The directories Applications and Documents are for your convenience and are not part of the OS. UNIX systems can use any file system they like. UNIX systems don't need to use /etc/init.d. UNIX systems don't need to use X; System V didn't even have a GUI originally. Anyway, as Epastore pointed out, because UNIX is a trademark, the trademark is free to do whatever they please with it, including applying it to things you wouldn't think they'd apply it too. And MFNickster, you're right; PPC Leopard is not UNIX, just UNIX-like. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You may notice the recent editing disputes again over whether Mac OS X is "Unix-based" or "Unix-like." I originally changed it to "Unix-based" after a number of reverts between "Unix" and "Unix-like." "Unix-based" seems to be the most inclusive and accurate way to describe a product that has a complex history, and is consistent with the description in Apple's materials all the way back to the beginning.

This really hinges on what "based on" means. Does it mean "uses as a foundation" or "is derived from"? I would argue that the current incarnation of Mac OS X fits both definitions. Darwin is a certified UNIX used as the base of the system, and it is derived from sources going back to the original BSD (with many parts replaced over the years with Mach-derived code and non-infringing versions of BSD).

Remember that NEXTSTEP, which is a direct ancestor of Mac OS X, was a bona fide licensed UNIX back in 1988, when BSD was not fully separated from AT&T's code - that didn't happen until the Net/2 distribution in 1991.

If BSD is "not UNIX" because they have replaced the original code, you could say the same about pretty much any modern certified UNIX - they probably share little if any code with the AT&T versions prior to 1991. It's a bit like the old philosophical argument about replacing the parts of a ship: if you save all the original parts until they are all replaced, and rebuild the ship with those parts, which ship is the "original"? MFNickster (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Knowhands enjoykeep

I have struck through the comments posted by User:Knowhands enjoykeep, a sock puppet of banned user Primetime. If new comments or edits similar to those already posted by those accounts are spotted please alert myself or another admin. Banned users are not permitted to edit any part of Wikipedia, and their contributions may be reverted without any consideration of their value. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

PS: Other proven socks of Primetime that've edited this article include user:Fdgdf3, user:Crazypush planyour..., and user: Kjngjkn. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

And User:Hello. I'm new here, but I'm sure I can help out.. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms Again (Permissions)

I added a caveat to the bit of the Criticisms on permissions. I thought the section was a bit overblown, and added some more recent information for relatively up-to-date context. I didn't think this was a big edit, so I didn't think much of it when I noticed I hadn't logged in. Having looked at the mess above, however, let me state for the record that the section does not seem to have a place in the overall article, unless something more substantial or current is added. Msr657 (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Permissions! Blargle! Unable to open files! SHOCK. People on forums are always reporting "repaired permissions" as the new "rebooted", when I'll bet most people $5 it makes no difference in their case. Seriously, I've never had a problem with permissions. Well, sometimes I change the ownership of system files to me so I can edit them and such, and that's probably not good in the long run. It's because I'm not terribly sure how to properly restore these permissions that I repair permissions. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Misleading information in Languages section

It's true that Mac OS X is somehow translated into Czech (see http://lokalizace.apple.cz), but the truth is that this nice language isn't standard part of the system itself. Even the official pages of Apple Inc. don't mention Czech: http://www.apple.com/macosx/techspecs/. Am I blind or something has changed and Czech localization is now regular part of Mac OS X? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablick (talk • contribs) 14:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the section to include your source and edited the list to match it. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Grammatical and meaningful version of this sentence would be better

One sentence reads:

"The most visible change was the Aqua theme, which Bruce Tognazzini, founder of the original Apple Human Interface Group, said Mac OS X v10.0 represented a step backwards in usability.[11][12] "

As it currently appears, this sentence is ungrammatical to the point that I cannot fix it, since it is not clear to me what it is supposed to mean. Could whoever wrote this please fix it? Thanks.Daqu (talk) 14:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That was written by User:Nja247 in this edit. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Rewritten. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

References

By looking at the references, I found this one :

Aqua was said to be a bold and innovative step forward in a time when user interfaces were seen as "dull and boring".
<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.thinksecret.com/archives/0100.html |
archiveurl=http://web.archive.org/web/20061111013803/http://www.thinksecret.com/archives/0100.html |archivedate=2006-11-11 |
title=Think Secret - January 2000 |date=January 18, 2000 |accessmonthday=December 20 |accessyear=2006 |publisher=Think Secret}}</ref>

Is it me, or this is a quote of a random internet guy? Don't get me wrong, that does not mean he's not right, but we have no idea who that guy is. That's hardly a reliable source. Dravick (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I added a lot of references to the article; unfortunately, there is still a lot of work to do. I might continue in a few days, after some other people have reviewed and potentially corrected systematic mistakes I could have made. Dravick (talk) 07:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The author of the article is Nicholas Ciarelli, aka Nick dePlume. He's a fairly well-known Mac-centric journalist, and has himself been the topic of coverage elsewhere (particularly around ThinkSecret's being sued by Apple a few years back); I'd go so far as to call him an expert on the topic of Apple commentary. Do you think that's good enough for WP:RS purposes? For what it's worth, I was the one who added this sentence and the source, way back in May 2006. :)

p.s. This article always improves in big leaps whenever you swing by to work on it. I'm glad you still do... thanks. Warren -talk- 09:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, hang on a minute here. I think I may have read this one wrong; the "dull and boring" comment was actually a reader comment to ThinkSecret, not a comment by Ciarelli himself. This probably disqualifies it from being included. If you think it needs to go, nuke it. Warren -talk- 09:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hack your G3?

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

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

does mac os x work with non-MAC pc

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

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

Good Article Nomination

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

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

Architecture

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

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

GA Review

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

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

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

Coverage

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

Most of the release history, i.e. most of section "Versions", should go in the "main" article History of Mac OS X. Mac OS X is big enough anyway, and there are things I think it needs to cover.

I would prefer to see, minimally, the list of the numeric versions together with the common versions. Ie: 10.5 Leopard, 10.6 Snow Leopard for a quick reference.Rawlogic (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Done The "Architecture" section does nothing for me at all. My feeling is that Mac-oriented developers won't need it and non-developers won't care. The discussion at Talk:Mac_OS_X#Architecture points the same way.

As I though. Nuked. Dravick (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that in-depth technical details should be left out, but we should at least hint at some of the underlying design, such as the list of layers that I provided. The list is very easy to understand and explains a great deal to both developers and the end user.Rawlogic (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing at all about the competitive success or otherwise of Mac OS X in the desktop/laptop and server markets. I guess the main competition are Windows (main attraction is lots of apps) and Linux (free).

I'll try to do that. However, I do not really know where to put all of that as of now, so in the meantime I'll throw everything in "Description". I'll probably create a new section afterwards. Dravick (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I would leave this out. This would go under a more general category such as operating systems. Where would the comparisons end?Rawlogic (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"Where would the comparisons end?" is not a great question. For personal computers, Windows is dominant, Mac OS second by along way, Linux has barely enough users to be notcieable, and the rest are nowhere. For servers, it's Linux, other Unix brands, Windows and Mac. --Philcha (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Seeing the mention of Xcode made me realise there's nothing about pricing options and "trim levels" of the type so well known to Windows users. In the Windows world I'd expect developer tools to be priced separately.

Well, Apple released their developer tools for free, so a copy with or without them is the same price. Dravick (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

TANSTAAFL. The bundling of developer tools simply means that their cost is partly / mainly paid by non-developer users, which is not a good deal for them. If you can't find Mac-specific sources for this, try Googling for "cost bundled software app application program" - unless of course you can show that both development and support / maintenance of developer tools cost Apple nothing. --Philcha (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I would say Xcode is on par with gcc and the "linux developer tools" (e.g. code::blocks, etc.); that is, they are free for everyone. Of course, gcc must have generated some expenses when developed, but it's still free for everyone. Dravick (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The applications that you wish to run decide the OS that you will install. Microsoft has free developer tools now (Visual Studio Express), perhaps to counter the fact that Mac is gaining ground due to an always free Xcode. Apple Developer Connection (ADC) memberships come in different flavors.Rawlogic (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you've just supported the point about the importance of apps. --Philcha (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing about price / performance comparisons. I think this is significant because that was the original Mac's Achilles heel - in the 1980s it was seen as user-friendly but too expensive to be a practical business tool; that led to a shortage of apps, as developers did not think the Mac was a good bet; and the Mac was rescued from oblivion by DTP, especially by Quark Express. Yes, I realise that's partly a hardware issue. However the original Mac, although having a more powerful processor than most PCs of the time, was slow because the GUI used so much system resource.

There used to be a mention of retail price. Someone added a price in USD, then someone else thought it was unfair and added a price in CAD, then GBP, and so on. We ended up with a huge table of prices that was very unencyclopedic and mostly ininteresting. Dravick (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no need for every currency. I'd limit it to $US, Euro and £UK, as these are the main international trading currencies - you couldJapanese Yen.

More seriously, the 1980s problem was that for a given total spend (hardware and software) you got a lot more useful performance (e.g. on big spreadsheets) from an MS-DOS PC than from a Mac. See #Some sources I found from Google. --Philcha (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I disagree for price listing. It ended being a big issue, whereas the actual usefulness of that information is quite limited. And someone who wants to buy it will most certainly go to the apple website instead of wikipedia. Dravick (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Dravick. Pricing information is hard to keep up to date. Also, performance is so subjective that it should not be included. As Mac OS X 10.6 will be stricly Intel processors, this whole issue will become moot. In the end, you get what you pay for. Desktop publishing is huge right now, regardless of platform, and the Adobe Suite runs on Windows and Mac.Rawlogic (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree that "performance is so subjective that it should not be included". You can argue about the choice of benchmarks, but their results are numbers, not at all subjective. Linux users would probably disagree with "In the end, you get what you pay for." --Philcha (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought we were talking about hardware. Benchmarks are not subjective, certainly. However, you'll need to compare Intel vs. Intel and test implementations of standard technologies like Java and OpenGL. Which vendor has implemented the technology in a faster/more efficient/less resource intensive way on identical hardware? Besides commonly implemented third party standards and technologies, you would always be comparing apples and oranges, and hence, always subjective.Rawlogic (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No, benchmarks are not subjective. I would admit they may not be neutral, but users don't care about that, they care about bang for the buck --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing about security, especially against malware on the Internet - which is famously a big issue with Windows. Is Mac OS X inherently more secure, or it simply a less attractive target to perpetrators because of its smaller market share?

In my opinion, the reason is that security is just not a concern for most people using Mac OS X. I would say that smaller market share does make it less attractive, but conversely mac people boasting about absolute security of the mac should make it more attractive. I think Mac OS X is inherently more secure than Windows, but we should definitely be very careful to source our claims with reputable people if we talk about it in the article. Dravick (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a very doubtful claim, see #Some sources I found from Google. --Philcha (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. That is _my_ opinion, and that's why it is not written in the article. Dravick (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of the issue with Windows operating systems was the fact that users logged in, and therefore ran, most applications as the administrator. In fact, before NT, there was no choice to do anything but. With Vista, finally, applications run in least priviledged mode. Mac OS X, having a Unix core, defaults to the least priviledged paradigm. Badly written Windows software causes headaches for users who try to make the switch to Vista, whereas Mac OS X developers have never been able to be lazy, they just had to deal with the paradigm. So, Windows was easy to gain control of, and combined with the large market share, a very prime target.Rawlogic (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have WP:RS to back that up? --Philcha (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I provided you wish some common knowledge and some terminology that you can google as a starting point. Also, I forgot to mention that Mac OS X is based on an open Unix core. The common thought is that open software is more secure due to peer review and development. Interestingly, some people are making names for themselves by reverse engineering (decompiling) Windows code, finding the bugs, and submitting the bugs to Microsoft and the rest of the world. Security by obscurity is weak. A little aside, to explain: The best crypto algorithms are the publicly publishes ones that have been tested by the community. Hide your key, not your algorithm. This is in effect the comparison between closed source such as Microsoft Windows and open source FreeBSD, on which Mac OS X is based.Rawlogic (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your "I provided you wish some common knowledge and some terminology that you can google as a starting point." I'm not a newbie asking for information, I'm a GA reviewer who happens to be an experienced computer consultant. Your point that Win users should not run as admins is relevant, but the artcile needs an explanation of any significant security differences between Win and OS X, backed up by inline citations of WP:RS. --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing about reliability - which is an issue in the server market, and even non-techie Windows users know the meaning of "blue screen". How many patches per year?

Same here, I would say it is not discussed because the mac equivalent (kernel panic) scarcely happens. For one, it's not been years since my last kernel panic, and i use Mac OS X every day for all my activities as a computer science undergraduate. Dravick (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting and impressive, as your activities would have made you a candidate for IBM's Black Team. However see #Some sources I found from Google. --Philcha (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think my experience is particularly impressive. See [2]. And I don't get the reference to the black team. Dravick (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Things are different with Vista, so while Mac OS X may be reliable, I would skip the comparison. Vista now has the Black Screen of Death, but the main feature here is the fact that drivers run in the OS kernel on Mac and drivers run outside of the OS kernel on Windows (between the hardware and the OS). A bad driver can take down a Windows PC, even with Vista, whereas it will not take down Mac OS X, except for hogging resources. Vista's answer for x64 versions is to require all drivers to be signed (a stamp of approval by the developer and Microsoft).

Do you have WP:RS to back that up? --Philcha (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

As a cross platform developer, this is common knowlege, and also a starting point if you'd like to find references.Rawlogic (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As the vast majority of WP readers are not cross platform developers, your "common knowlege" is contrary to WP:V - you need to cite WP:RS Although I've worked with computers for decades, it's unclear to me how OS X' having the drivers within the kernel is an advantage in this context - I'd have thought it would be more secure to place drivers, which are produced under time-pressure to sell add-ons, and perhaps by outsiders, in a sandbox at a lower authorisation level than dispatching (selecting which task to run next) and both virtual and real memory manangement. --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Nothing about whether non-Apple cards and peripherals can be added. The original Mac was was criticised for being "closed" (Apple components only) compared with the IBM PC. However third-party device drivers are now blamed for some Windows instabilities and security issues.

Good point. I wouldn't know what to say though. Dravick (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

So get Googling. --Philcha (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue is more that this is not a subject that interests me. If someone else wants to do that, fine. Dravick (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Third party devices and cards can be added. Macintosh provides detailed instructions for driver development, even down to PCI and PCI-X interfaces.Rawlogic (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a good start. Are there any notable non-Apple cards and / or peripherals? --Philcha (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The article includes criticisms of the usability of various Mac OS X features (notably Aqua), but no comparisons of its usability with other pc OSs.

In my experience, comparisons with other OSs always degenerated and were removed. Dravick (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

By "always degenerated and were removed" do you mean edit wars? WP:V and WP:RS are usually a good opening move, and after a couple of rounds you start thinking about a reference to WP:ANI for WP:DE.

See #Some sources I found from Google. --Philcha (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, it is my opinion that comparisons between OSs are a bad idea. If someone else want to do something with that, I don't mind again. See here as an example. There used to be a mac vs windows page too, but was deleted here. Dravick (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the critique of Aqua actually notable?Rawlogic (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

In the WP:NOABILITY sense, yes, as it was written by a recognised usability expert. Whether it's important enough to warrant much space now that Aqua has been supersed is a separate question. --Philcha (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing about email apps and very little about web browsers - as far as I can see Safari get only a few passing mentions in section "Versions", and nothing about alternatives or pre-Safari browsers (Safari was introduced in 2003 with OS X 10.3).
In fact very little about apps at all, e.g. the words "spreadsheet", "word processor" and "game" do not appear at all. Let's face it, apps are what sell computers.

So, what are the popular apps on Mac OS X? What apps sell the Mac? I believe that iMovie and Final Cut sell Macs.Rawlogic (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS? --Philcha (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing about ability to inter-operate with Windows and Unix / Linux machines. OK, I'd expect email and the Web to be no problem, as these are governed by global standards - but does it work out in practice? And what about exchanging "spreadsheet" and / or "word processor" files?

I think as of 2009 this is mostly a non-issue. I would argue it is as hard to exchange a spreadsheet between two computers with different versions of windows as it is to exchange between a mac and a pc, or mac/linux, or any combination. Some problems arises sometimes, but if standards are followed it works. Dravick (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree - file sharing is no big problem for Win users as they can e.g. make Excel etc. save in the formats of earlier versions, and I always save WP files as .RTF to avoid both version compatibility issues and macro viruses. Users of other OSs have a different and larger problem - how do they share files (both produce and accept) with the much more numerous Win users? --Philcha (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

They do the same thing... they save in the right excel format using openoffice or microsoft office for mac or really any other software (or in RTF, for that matter), and then send it to windows users with the same method (email, SMB, ftp, http, whatever). The point is, it might be very easy to share stuff between different versions of windows, but it is as easy to do the same between linux and windows or mac and windows, at least in the present. Maybe it used to be different. Dravick (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Dravick. File formats are not much of an issue. Many formats, even if proprietary, are well documented. Microsoft formats are not, but OpenOffice seems to manage. TCP/IP is platform independent. Macs at the office can browse my file shares, and vice versa.Rawlogic (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS? --Philcha (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

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

I disagree, see comments above and #Some sources I found from Google.

You probably think I'm being a real hard bastard. If it's any comfort, I apply the same standards of coverage to articles I work on, see for example Paleontology, Arthropod, Sponge, Alexander Alekhine, Wilhelm Steinitz. When I reviewed Sperm Whale, I made the article's supporters work pretty hard but also helped as much as a reviewer is allowed to, and they were really pleased with the outcome. --Philcha (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I still think I am mostly right. Of course, I also think that my opinion should not make its way into the article; there should be reliable sources cited. And no, I do not think that you are a hard bastard, I think the review process serves the purpose of the article being criticised so that it can be improved. And your criticisisms are much more precise than "too much text" and "not elaborate enough", which is really a good thing. On the other hand, I contributed to the article about subjects that interests me, so naturally we would need other contributors to complete the article. I will still try to implement some of the suggestions when I get a little free time. Dravick (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree that comparisons should mostly be avoided. Where do the comparisons end? The Mac OS X page shouldn't even know that Windows exists, except, perhaps, in a list of Alternative operating systems at the end of the article or a link back to the Operating systems page. What comparisons would be notable besides the appearance? Also open versus closed. I don't have to buy a PC from Microsoft to install the OS, I don't even need a PC. I can run Windows on a virtual server legally, but not Mac. I thought the versioning difference was also notable, especially with regards to updates. For example all updates for XP are free if you own XP. If you have Mac OS X, you can only get updates for your version of OS X (you have to pay to go from 10.4 to 10.5).Rawlogic (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can provide WP:RS for "For example all updates for XP are free if you own XP. If you have Mac OS X, you can only get updates for your version of OS X (you have to pay to go from 10.4 to 10.5)" that's a very significant point about the pricing and therefore prospects of success in the mmarketplace. --Philcha (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Some sources I found from Google

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

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

Re OS market share, Google found Mac OS X market share growth stumbles, which cites its source, which is available online - and that was just from the first page of Google results. OK, the footnote would have to include a comment on the methodology, but from such sources you can reconstruct trends going back to e.g. 2000.
Comparison of Win, Mac & Linux - Mac, PC or Linux? Your next operating system, from first page of this Google so I expect there are other comparisons. Including "shootout" in the search string might help.
Re usability, GraphJam: Usability by Operating System is amusing but not exactly WP:RS. More seriously, although Googling for mac windows linux usability ease of use got me nothing useful, Googling for mac windows usability ease of use got me Review: Mac OS X Shines In Comparison With Windows Vista, and you should look for additional hits from this search, and from searching for "mac linux usability ease of use" - as well as "mac usability ease of use"!
Re apps, Review: Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon vs. Mac OS X Leopard (P. 2) summarises standard Mac apps, which is a start. I suggest Googling for "mac os x app application".
Cross-Platform Approaches from a Macintosh Perspective points out the commerical unattractiveness of the Mac's low market share to developers. (found in this Google Scholar).
Re reliability, please check the hits in mac os x reliability crash panic patch. BTW you need to explain "kernel panic" and I remember an article that said it's the equiv of Win's BSOD - Goggle will find it fast enough for you.
Re security and malware, the first results page of Google for "mac os x security" got me Mac OS X security myth exposed - and I'd have expected similar alert levels to Unix as OS X is Uni-based, although it surprised me that both showed up as not significantly better than Win XP. That search is almost certain to find other relevant sources. --Philcha (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Re price performance, Google for mac os X windows benchmark shootout got me a forum which got me Windows XP Pro versus Mac OS X both on the MacBook Pro. I'm sure there's plenty more on performance, and some may provide comparative system costs.

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

Response to discussion above

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

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

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

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

Comments from Gary King

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

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

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

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

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

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

On another note, I've marked a few batches of text with the {{fact}} template as unreferenced; several paragraphs are also unreferenced, so they need to be cited. Please do so.

I see you have tagged the "finder criticism" and "dock criticism" sentences for fact. However, these references used to be there, but were moved in the respective article. So now I don't really know what to do, should I just copy-paste some (or all?) of the references from the linked article? Dravick (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't actually marking the criticism sentences but rather the descriptions of the Finder and Dock. I removed the criticism mention; I don't think they belong in this article. The Feature section should be light and be an overview of the features, not mulling over pros and cons, which should be left to other articles. Gary King (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind, but for the record, a criticism section was first added when the neutrality of the article was questioned. Then gradually they were moved to their respective articles (finder/dock), and now the last trace of it is being removed. Dravick (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk about the features in the "Features" section in a neutral manner then it shouldn't be a problem. Just describe what they do, not how good they do it. Gary King (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Some web references are missing access dates, which they need per WP:CITE/ES.

Done. Dravick (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Hey all, a lot of recent copyedits and issues addressed. Reviewer, what's the overall status of this GAR? Cheers. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

For starters, there are a few citation needed tags. Gary King (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I am failing this nomination. It has gone on for a month and a half; the article has seen significant improvements since this review began, but the article still has some more major work to do. Please take your time to work on the issues mentioned, and renominate the article when you believe that it is ready. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Specious/redundant comments and comparisons

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

In the section "Description", the statement is made "Furthermore, while the market share of Mac OS X has been growing on average, its growth is slower than, for example, Windows Vista, both of which competes to replace Windows XP." Grammatical errors aside, comparing the rate that users upgrade Windows against overall growth-rate of an OS is specious. If a comparison is to be made, either compare overall OS marketshare vs. OS marketshare, or compare adoption of Vista from XP to OS X Leopard from Tiger. I propose this entire sentence be removed, but didn't want to do it without discussion.

Well, I agree with you, but it ended up there because of a request from GA reviewer Talk:Mac_OS_X/GA2, so I don't know what to say. Dravick (talk) 08:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I suggest the relevant comparison would be Win XP+Vista vs Mac OS (all versions), since release of OS X. --Philcha (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

In "The Finder", the statement "It has been the subject of some criticisms." is added, almost as an afterthought. I feel this is unnecessary -- what program is not "the subject of some criticism"? There's already a link to this article at the beginning of the line, there isn't a need for a second reference in the same. This does not add to our knowledge of Finder.

That was done to avoid a copy/paste of essentially the same information from the article it links to. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Same in "The Dock": "Like the Finder, the dock has had some usability criticisms." Redundant reference and doesn't add to the topic.

Same as above (avoiding repetitive information and to avoid making this article too long). Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah definitely both those sections need some attention. Dravick (talk) 08:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

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

Filesystem compatibility?

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

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

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

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

Sure it is an issue. The only means that OS X has of using filesystems "foreign" to its own compatibilities is through either NFS mounts ("translation" left to the exporting sub-server-space, slow performance, no direct I/O possible with the sub-server) or macFuse (although faster because working in the client-space, with a sub-server I/O bypass possible, it has only a few "translations" available to date). This is a an extreme limitation for mac OS X server: it can only work at high-performance filesharing levels with "native" filesystems - or in other words, other xServes. THEPROMENADER 08:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As always, if you find enough expert opinion that this is an issue, by all means add a mention of it, with appropriate references. Dravick (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but that doesn't really make sense. You are claiming that Mac OS X gets a performance hit while talking to servers that run filesystems that it doesn't support natively? When one server talks to another, what does the native filesystem have to do with anything? If you are transferring files from one machine to another, you are going to be using a protocol like NFS, SMB, AFP, etc. Not making native file system calls. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If you consider the speed gains through using direct I/O transfer, a feature that is only possible between computers using the same filesystem, then yes, I would consider having to fall back to NFS a 'performance hit'. Some *nix filesystems are made for performance - XFS for large-volume files, for example - so there are speed/functionality gains to be had there, too. THEPROMENADER 07:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, if you are talking about direct I/O transfer as implemented in the AIX and Linux kernels, that has nothing to do with transferring files between computers. That is just about letting applications read/write files directly from a disk instead of the contents going through the kernel cache. Which is just as likely to cause a performance hit because with normal I/O there is a chance that the blocks you want are already in the cache. Or am I barking up the wrong tree and you are talking about something completely different? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, we seem to be getting into a techie discussion here rather than talking about the article ; ) Yes, I was talking about the internal I/O of both linked servers - through NFS, the transferred info has to go through two caches/CPU's (one on each server) instead of one, as the filesystem translation/transfer is not imported into userspace as it is using applications such as FUSE. I could point you to some benchmark sites if you like - I'm going to have to anyways if I want sources for the article. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 07:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

To get this into the article you need to point to someone who says the lack of XFS, ZFS write, etc is a detriment. BTW Are you sure that FUSE doesn't use F_NOCACHE (the Mac OS X equivalent of DIO)? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 13:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's just say that mac OS X has adopted a *nix-y system without the *nix filesystem compatibility. Yes, fuse uses the F_NOCACHE, but as long as the filesystem in question is importable to the userspace. THEPROMENADER 20:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

So the FUSE filesystems allow DIO. ZFS is available as a native filesystem for those that want it. The only one you've mentioned that doesn't seem to be available is XFS. Are there other filesystems? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes - I'll do the research and provide some sources before adding anything. There's already a good source here : Comparison_of_file_systems and here Comparison_of_operating_systems. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 06:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that Wikipedia articles can't be used as sources. And even though it looks like a lot of the content of the filesystem article is cited, it is actually just pointing to notes. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

iPhone OS subsection in Versions?

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

I don't know. From my point of view, we know nothing about it, else than "the iPhone runs OS X", to quote Steve Jobs. If you have some good references, then sure go ahead and add a section, but don't just add speculations without any sources. Dravick (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually there is quite an extensive article about the iPhone OS. That's why I'm thinking there should be some mention of it here, other than the see also section. It would be easy to add to - just a copy and paste with a little editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Photographerguy (talk • contribs) 22:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Added a new section about the iPhone OS. Photographerguy (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:AlistairMcMillan deleted the new section about the iPhone OS on the basis that it was copied and pasted from the Main iPhone OS article. What does everybody think about including this section? I obviously think it should be included, but I won't put it back until I can get some more input... Photographerguy (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There's really no reason to have a section that simply summarises what's already said in another article. A simple link: Main article, or See also should suffice. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry this isn't a debate on whether the iPhone runs some version of Mac OS X. We know it does. The debate is how much detail on the iPhone version do we want in the Mac OS X article. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Mac OS X refers to the desktop operating system, iPhone OS refers to the mobile operating system. It's like comparing it to Windows Mobile. You can't install a copy of Leopard on your iPhone, and you cant run a copy of iPhone OS X on your Mac, even though they're based on the same code. I heard that Apple is/wants to register "OS X". Maybe an article entitled "OS X" could be made, mentioning both "OS X"s? Because it doesn't really seem right to mention the iPhone's operating system here when Mac OS X always and only refers to the version which runs on Macs, and there exists an iPhone OS article. Then again, I suppose it can't hurt to add a section about the iPhone OS as being based on the Mac code? Althepal (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me if I'm wrong here, but the iPhone OS is not really running OS X because it's not running Darwin, which OS X is based on. Though legally speaking Apple is allowed to brand anything OS X --Kelvin_HO^{Wiknerd(talk)} 14:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but the iPhone OS is based on Darwin. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

And Althepal, what the hell are you talking about? They started with the Mac OS X code, you say yourself they are based on the same code. For gods sake, we already mention the iPhone OS in the Mac OS X article, that isn't the debate. The debate was, how much do we say about it? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, no more than a paragraph. Althepal (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Mac OS X market share comparison?

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

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

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

X is for...

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

Source? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

In the link I found a while ago it clearly states 'pronounced "Mac O-S ten"' (on apple site). That clears the debate on how to pronounce it. As of its meaning and philosophical reasons, wikipedia might not be the right place to speculate about that. Dravick (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not call it OS 10, then? (Makes you wonder if there will ever be a OS XI or OS 11?) Actually, I found the UniX thing on the German Wikipedia article, where it reads: "[Apart from the roman numeral, it] also follows the tradition of other Unix derivates, whose names almost exclusively end with an X, such as AIX, IRIX, A/UX, Sinix, HP-UX und Xenix."They don't cite any source, though. -- megA (talk) 13:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I would venture to say that they used the X instead of 10 because OS X was really completely different than OS 9, unlike OS 9 vs OS 8 for example. This is only my opinion, and that is the reason it does not end up in an encyclopedia. It is likely that it also has a relationship with the fact that it is a unix, but that's just speculation. Dravick (talk) 01:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone at Apple comes out and says something different than what has been said over the last nine years, then the correct answer is that the X represents the Roman numeral ten. Ideas along the lines of a relationship to standard practice in Unix operating system naming, or to the name of its predecessor (NextStep), or the pop-culture popularity of the letter at the time, or anything else is speculative. It's easy to picture Jobs, Schiller et al. sitting around a table brainstorming this one and using all of those things as a rationale for the choice of name... but unless someone pipes up about it, we're stuck with what we've got. Warren -talk- 02:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

"Human" language explanation

From User:AlistairMcMillan summary:

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

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

^ Bruce Tognazzini, OS X: A First Look
^ Matthew Paul Thomas, My first 48 hours enduring Mac OS X
^ The Open Group. "Mac OS X Version 10.5 Leopard on Intel-based Macintosh computers certification". Retrieved 2007-06-12.

[1] Bruce Tognazzini, OS X: A First Look

[2] Matthew Paul Thomas, My first 48 hours enduring Mac OS X

[3] The Open Group. "Mac OS X Version 10.5 Leopard on Intel-based Macintosh computers certification". Retrieved 2007-06-12.

[1]

[2]

[3]