Talk:macOS/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

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5) Safari plug-ins (Added, but be advised that information is likely out of date.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.

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, 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)