Talk:iOS version history/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about IOS version history. 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
iOS 5 beta on CDMA iPhone
Ok, according to iModZone, there is a 5.0 beta for CDMA iPhone's... Is this a mistake on this page or did they mod something in the firmware? --Cole Johnson (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
iPad 2 Baseband
There are iPad 2 Wi-Fi + 3G models, but there is no Baseband number on 4.3.x for the iPad 2. 79.181.235.163 (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation request
Having just typed in a search for IOS version history, I was expecting to see a page on Cisco's IOS notable for it's use in Cisco switches and routers. Instead I was directed here. Could someone create a disambiguation page for IOS? I'm not experienced enough for that. --Sdoradus (talk) 01:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Collapsible Sections
This page has gotten too long and cumbersome to read. What if the older, obselete versions had their tables collapsed within a collapsable header with some summary, or link to the main article, like so?
ios version 1.0The first iOS was released with the first iPhone.
|
Shencypeter (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with this idea. The tables themselves are extremely long, and the initial releases and major updates have single rows that are very tall and require lots of scrolling on their own. Anyone else like the idea of collapsing the older versions, say, 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 for iPhone? JohnnyJ7788 (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Wikipedians here are eagerly adding anticipated features to the iOS version 5 to care about "housekeeping"... but I did find out that anchor links will not work unless the version "sections" are visible... Shencypeter (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, great idea. I have actually done the same for the v3/v4 releases too, as they are not going to be receiving any more updates so are effectively "past" references only. However, the only thing I am unsure of is the best practice with regard to the Contents anchors you mention, as they don't link down the page when users click on them ...surely there must be another way of making the collapse sections open if an anchor is clicked on (I'm sure I have seen this on another WP page somewhere before?). Anyone know? (Please fix if you can.) ;-) --Jimthing (talk) 09:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- The best way I could find to deal with the TOC links not working (because sections weren't expanded) was to set a limit on the TOC depth. That way there's no broken links in the TOC and it's not as long - it was getting way out of control with every version listed in there. Jd2157 (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Nice one! They now link better down page. 'One more thing' can someone please change the colours on the title headings so they emulate other Apple product pages better [eg. like this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacBook_Pro#Technical_specifications_2]. The out-of-date versions should be in a tan colour (ie. the first 3 iOS's title should be in tan colour: "iOS 1 versions", "iOS 2 versions", "iOS 3 versions"). Then the current version should be in a green (ie. the title for the two current versions "iOS 4 versions" and "iOS 4 versions (Apple TV)"). And finally, the future versions [announced/betas] should be in a blue colour (ie. the title for the two future versions "iOS 5 versions" and "iOS 5 versions (Apple TV)"). Annoyingly they are all in this light-green colour, which doesn't make it easy to see the current version. I'd do it myself, but I cannot remember the markup :-( --Jimthing (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Done! This was just a simple matter of styling the cot tag template with the bg parameter, like this
{{cot|title=iOS 1 versions|bg=#ffdead}}with hex colors "FFdead" (dead, nice one!!), #3d4, and #2fc0ff. :) Shencypeter (talk) 05:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)- To align with other Apple pages (like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacBook_Pro) I've switched to collapsible tables rather than sections. Not much difference practically speaking but they look more like the other Apple stuff. Next up is cleaning up the use of notes (currently using deprecated footnote3 style in some areas). Jd2157 (talk) 04:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe the current version tables should be expanded (not collapsed) by default since those would generally be the versions people are looking for. Might help the readability. Jd2157 (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Done! This was just a simple matter of styling the cot tag template with the bg parameter, like this
- Nice one! They now link better down page. 'One more thing' can someone please change the colours on the title headings so they emulate other Apple product pages better [eg. like this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacBook_Pro#Technical_specifications_2]. The out-of-date versions should be in a tan colour (ie. the first 3 iOS's title should be in tan colour: "iOS 1 versions", "iOS 2 versions", "iOS 3 versions"). Then the current version should be in a green (ie. the title for the two current versions "iOS 4 versions" and "iOS 4 versions (Apple TV)"). And finally, the future versions [announced/betas] should be in a blue colour (ie. the title for the two future versions "iOS 5 versions" and "iOS 5 versions (Apple TV)"). Annoyingly they are all in this light-green colour, which doesn't make it easy to see the current version. I'd do it myself, but I cannot remember the markup :-( --Jimthing (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- The best way I could find to deal with the TOC links not working (because sections weren't expanded) was to set a limit on the TOC depth. That way there's no broken links in the TOC and it's not as long - it was getting way out of control with every version listed in there. Jd2157 (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, great idea. I have actually done the same for the v3/v4 releases too, as they are not going to be receiving any more updates so are effectively "past" references only. However, the only thing I am unsure of is the best practice with regard to the Contents anchors you mention, as they don't link down the page when users click on them ...surely there must be another way of making the collapse sections open if an anchor is clicked on (I'm sure I have seen this on another WP page somewhere before?). Anyone know? (Please fix if you can.) ;-) --Jimthing (talk) 09:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Wikipedians here are eagerly adding anticipated features to the iOS version 5 to care about "housekeeping"... but I did find out that anchor links will not work unless the version "sections" are visible... Shencypeter (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Very nicely done. Thanks all. I have added "auto-expand" to sections 4.x (current) & 5.x (beta), as discussed, as these are the ones people are likely want to refer to currently. Also, added background color to headers (with currently sold devices & their current/beta OS getting green/blue respectively); should aid quick visual reference, thus understanding. 4.x can then be "collapsed" and colour changed after 5.x gets released. ;-) Jimthing (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks to all! Now the question is should ios version 5 be as detailed as it is? I raised the collapsible sections as a polite measure against removing content. It seems an actual cleanup is in order.... Shencypeter (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes it should be as detailed as it is. If it's change or update in behaviour, then it gets listed accordingly. Only removal of repeats should be considered. Jimthing (talk) 07:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- I just think the level of detail should be only as specific as the dialog box given in iTunes when prompted to update, as today for iOS 5. This page is considered for deletion, so it's probably moot now..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shencypeter (talk • contribs) 01:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes it should be as detailed as it is. If it's change or update in behaviour, then it gets listed accordingly. Only removal of repeats should be considered. Jimthing (talk) 07:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
iOS 5.x Release Date
Why does this article say that iOS 5.x comes out in fall 2011? This is clearly a blatant lie. We are now well into winter 2011 and my iTunes still says iOS 4 is the latest version. I'm very disappointed. I'm never trusting Wikipedia again you liars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.20.162 (talk) 10:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Fall in the northern hemisphere... 70.77.221.173 (talk) 12:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
- Erm, der... Fall/Autumn in the multinational commercial world is always the northern hemisphere (that's Sep-Nov 2011, incase you can't work it out, lol), so if you live in the southern hemisphere you'll just have to get over it I'm afraid as it's always been the convention and always will be! (This person is a troll. Read their talk page for someone either very stupid or just being a fuckwit by spouting same-old-same-old anti-American trolling about the absolutely blindingly obvious data format issues that experienced users ALREADY DEAL WITH DAY IN DAY OUT. Yawn.) --Jimthing (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:MOSDATES#Longer periods stipulates otherwise. I'll quote here for consolidation's sake. You can verify as per my former link.
"As the seasons are reversed in the northern and southern hemispheres—and areas near the equator tend to have just wet and dry seasons—neutral wording (in early 1990, in the second quarter of 2003, around September) is usually preferable to a "seasonal" reference (summer 1918, spring 1995). Even when the season reference is unambiguous (for instance when a particular location is clearly involved) a date or month may be preferable to a season name, unless there is a logical connection (the autumn harvest). Season names are preferable, however, when they refer to a phase of the natural yearly cycle (migration to higher latitudes typically starts in mid-spring). Seasons are normally spelled with a lower-case initial." -anyway, there it is. I will revert as per WP:MOSDATES any changes.. Also, if you change iOS 5's release date from 'Late 2011' to a specified date, please add a source!. Many unregistereders keep changing the date to something in September but it varies, sometimes 7 September, sometimes otherwise, and so on.. kiranerys(u,c) 15:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)- I have changed the date back to "Late 2011" again. Once more, someone (unregistered user) has changed this line to Fall 2011 (as presented on the Apple website), but as we have seen discussed here, this seasonal designation only applies in the Northern Hemisphere. No one should change this release date until a SPECIFIC MONTH OR DATE is known. Obviously, this is going to continue to be a problem, since I believe that unregistered users don't take the time to read Talk pages since they seemingly can't take the time to make an account. JohnnyJ7788 (talk) 01:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Someone changed the release date to Fall again. It can't say Fall, regardless of how much Jimthing and others beat their chests, as it is against Wikipedia policy to refer to dates by seasons. Wikipedia has very strict guidelines on date formats. 101.169.31.134 (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Actually I wasn't "beating my chest' about being de-hemisphered (not quite a word!? lol), but merely reflecting this users obsession with not understanding the marketing terms multinational companies employ when referring to dates sometimes. Anyway, I have altered the release date to Sep-Nov, as this is more precise than "late" which can mean right up to year end. Jimthing (talk) 11:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
- Someone changed the release date to Fall again. It can't say Fall, regardless of how much Jimthing and others beat their chests, as it is against Wikipedia policy to refer to dates by seasons. Wikipedia has very strict guidelines on date formats. 101.169.31.134 (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- I have changed the date back to "Late 2011" again. Once more, someone (unregistered user) has changed this line to Fall 2011 (as presented on the Apple website), but as we have seen discussed here, this seasonal designation only applies in the Northern Hemisphere. No one should change this release date until a SPECIFIC MONTH OR DATE is known. Obviously, this is going to continue to be a problem, since I believe that unregistered users don't take the time to read Talk pages since they seemingly can't take the time to make an account. JohnnyJ7788 (talk) 01:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:MOSDATES#Longer periods stipulates otherwise. I'll quote here for consolidation's sake. You can verify as per my former link.
- Erm, der... Fall/Autumn in the multinational commercial world is always the northern hemisphere (that's Sep-Nov 2011, incase you can't work it out, lol), so if you live in the southern hemisphere you'll just have to get over it I'm afraid as it's always been the convention and always will be! (This person is a troll. Read their talk page for someone either very stupid or just being a fuckwit by spouting same-old-same-old anti-American trolling about the absolutely blindingly obvious data format issues that experienced users ALREADY DEAL WITH DAY IN DAY OUT. Yawn.) --Jimthing (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
According to AppleInsider, iOS 5 won't be released until early or mid-October. However the golden master is expected to drop by sometime later this week. —stay (sic)! 00:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- EVENT "Let's Talk iPhone." now confirmed: 10 am PT, Tue.4.Oct.2011 — confirmation that emails have been sent to the press. (eg. http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/09/apple-sends-invites-for-october-2011-event-lets-talk-iphone.ars ). So no more re-re-re-re-edits of the date please! (also, this request for article deletion is invalid!) --Jimthing (talk) 06:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
“Unnecessary” edits
Hello,
“Unnecessary” is not a valid justification for reverting my good edits. In fact, most of them were necessary. And even if they had been “unnecessary”, that would not be a reason to revert them. Wikipedia itself is not necessary. Read WP:OWN, WP:ROWN.
“BugFix” is not an English word.
In the English Wikipedia, we don't Put Capital letters randomly To Normal words in the Middle of Sentences. Read MOS:CAPS. And I am gentle. I have left the anarchic capitalization of “generation” / “Generation”, as well as quite a few other dubious ones.
“UI” is an abbreviation. Let's title it discreetly. It is indeed necessary for accessibility.
Cheers,
--Nnemo (talk) 14:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
iMessage resource
- Free Texts Pose Threat to Carriers By Jenna Wortham, published October 9, 2011 in The New York Times. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Siri Support on iOS 5.1 beta section
"Possible Siri support, assumed because of the new "Siri Settings" menu." Does this mean that there can be Siri support on older devices, or was there any iPhone 4S that didn't had Siri support?? --"SimonOrJ"(U/T/C) 23:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- No, this simply means a 4S Siri Settings menu under General. Options: •Siri [on/off], •Language [En AU/UK/US, Fr, Ger, Jap], •Voice Feedback [Hands-free Only/Always] (ie. does Siri speak to confirm info back to you & just show its response on the screen, or just the latter only), •My Info (ie. set user page in Contacts), •Raise To Speak [on/off] (off: press & hold home button / on: press & hold home button or raise the phone to your ear and speak). Hope this clarifies for you. ;-) --Jimthing (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
New Montesi Wallpaper
In the section for iOS 5.1 it says one of the features is "New Montesi Wallpaper", but I haven't been able to find a citation for this or an explanation of what this means. Tweisbach (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- I went ahead and removed it. If anyone can find a citation for it please add it back. Tweisbach (talk) 07:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Photo Stream in 5.1
Images can now be removed manually from the Photo Stream in iCloud. Any photos deleted are now also removed from other iOS devices connected to iCloud.
---
That's wrong... Images deleted from Photo Stream on a iOS device is only deleted on that device. It clearly says so when you use it on a iOS device. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.29.31.5 (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Version color coding
What's the deal with the color coding? (obsolete-discontinued-current-beta). As I see it, versions 3.1.3, 4.1.2 are the latest versions in use for some devices, but are not being updated anymore, so therefore "discontinued". Version 5.1 is at this moment the latest version, so "current". And all others are "obsolete", as they have been replaced with newer versions. 82.171.164.155 (talk) 07:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- I agree it should be changed. I've never understood the current use either. The use of "obsolete" and "discontinued" seems to be a misapplication of those terms, and implies "obsolete" isn't also "discontinued" when it clearly is. --Resplendent (talk) 05:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
- Disagree. These terms are relating to the device status, not the OS status, but the two go hand in hand, hence both communicated in the table. Obsolete devices work but major functions making them beyond current standards, whilst Discontinued ones fit current standards but are not supported anymore by Apple. Slight but clear reasoning for necessary terminology in usage here. --Jimthing (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Is there an objective source somewhere on this? If you're just pulling it out of the air, that's not much of a justification. You can't just handpick a few certain features and claim them to be current standards. I don't see it being device status either, as neither the 2nd generation touch nor iPhone 3G are sold new in stores, so what makes them "discontinued" instead of "obsolete?" --Resplendent (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Actually I need to correct myself here, it's the SOFTWARE not the hardware (sorry, I fix quite a few Apple-related pages recently and forgot this is the OS page context we're talking about here).
- iPhone (original)/iPod Touch (1st generation)) use 3.1.3 = obsolete because nearly all current apps on the platform require 4.x or higher. iPhone 3G/iPod Touch (2nd generation) use 4.2.1 = discontinued as most apps work with 4.x, but it's not the current version (hence "discontinued", rather than "current"). --Jimthing (talk) 05:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- That doesn't make any sense to me. 3.1.3 and 4.2.1 should have the same status, as they are both the latest version of certain (discontinued) devices. Considering which OS "nearly all current apps" support does not sound like a good measure to me. 195.33.27.172 (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Apple don't support 3.x (obsolete), they do 4.x (discontinued). --Jimthing (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- What kind of support are they offering for 4.x, and don't offer for 3.x? 195.33.27.172 (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Apple don't support 3.x (obsolete), they do 4.x (discontinued). --Jimthing (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- That doesn't make any sense to me. 3.1.3 and 4.2.1 should have the same status, as they are both the latest version of certain (discontinued) devices. Considering which OS "nearly all current apps" support does not sound like a good measure to me. 195.33.27.172 (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- Is there an objective source somewhere on this? If you're just pulling it out of the air, that's not much of a justification. You can't just handpick a few certain features and claim them to be current standards. I don't see it being device status either, as neither the 2nd generation touch nor iPhone 3G are sold new in stores, so what makes them "discontinued" instead of "obsolete?" --Resplendent (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Disagree. These terms are relating to the device status, not the OS status, but the two go hand in hand, hence both communicated in the table. Obsolete devices work but major functions making them beyond current standards, whilst Discontinued ones fit current standards but are not supported anymore by Apple. Slight but clear reasoning for necessary terminology in usage here. --Jimthing (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well this has been updated now to versions under each section (as I noticed quite some time ago before adding this comment), and I actually agree it's better and clearer under this new way. So this talk issue is finished. Thanks. Jimthing (talk) 02:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
5.0.2/5.1
The build number (9B176) and the Release notes listed for iOS 5.0.2 (unreleased?) is accurate for iOS 5.1. justin493 (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
iOS Versions Usage Share?
The article needs a discussion of upgrade behavior by iOS users (how quickly do they upgrade, are updates pushed automatically by Apple?), and a pie chart of what versions of iOS are currently (with date) in use.
Compare the pie chart in the Android article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.5.218 (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- Agree, but where are you going to source such data from? Jimthing (talk) 11:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)