Talk:Max (software)

message: "Many other artists use Max/MSP/Jitter, but prefer not to mention it. For more on this subject, see this discussion on the Max/MSP mailing list."
The link in question is no longer available, or was removed, from the archives. It should have been archived it was significant.
I deleted the line.  The problem is hardly the dead link.  Why is that sentence in there anyway?  Many lists of notables could contain such a statement, but I have never seen anything like it.  The list should contain people who can be verified to use the software.  Saying (in an unverified way) that there are secret users, hiding their use, is absurd.  If this using Max in secret is a real thing, it should be given its own main section in the article, but that should only happen when someone can come up with actual sourcing on the topic.  128.200.46.129 (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: The article currently doesn't say what you can actually do with the program, at least for an outsider it may not be clear. --Abdull 16:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Function 

message: The link at the bottom, "many artists uses Max but prefer not to mention it," is broken. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Replicate (talk • contribs) 06:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link 

message: This whole "article" reads like an advert. 131.30.121.23 21:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advert 

message: What citations / sources are needed for this article to be good?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.11.100 (talk) 05:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: This is an uninformative mess, as an outsider. The point at which I gave up was the use of jargon acronyms at the start (MSP, for example) which are only explained by chance later in the article. If you must use non-standard acronyms, then you have the responsibility to explain them, otherwise you defeat the entire objective of the article, to elucidate the uninformed, but simply adding to the confusion. The use of personal names is unprofessional, and so needs substantiation, too.
I would suggest that you stand back, pretend you don't know anything about the subject, and examine every word and phrase to ensure it's as clear as possible to the outsider. For example, "for the NeXT, and later Silicon Graphics (SGI) and Linux" confuses hardware manufacturers and operating systems: as this is software, I presume you mean the manufacturers' proprietary operating system NeXTSTEP in the first case, but you do need to be far more specific about the SGI configuration, as they produced a huge range of systems using every operating system under the sun. Although the top structure is possibly coherent, it's become fragmented: history should be a sequential chronology, so later derivations can be seen to develop from the first rough-cut approximation, explaining the changes made as you go.
The Language section should only deal in the structure and concepts of the Language ("Max is named after the late Max Mathews" for example belongs in History) describing what it is setting out to achieve and how it does it. That should ideally extend into a superficial primer guiding the beginner into the language's more useful aspects, avoiding the data overload many manuals dump on the tyro.
Once you've restored logic to the article, you need to substantiate what you say with links to academic studies, ideally, failing which press reports and other source. These should give the reader a view of the different takes on the subject, and help them find a balance between any conflicting subinterests.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.253.30.32 (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worse than that 

message: The image :Image:Autechremax.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Autechremax.jpg

message: Was Zicarelli's interactive composition software called M an early version of Max? 93.96.236.8 (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: M