Talk:Mac OS X Leopard/Archive 2

message: Is there ANY information, positive or negative, regarding full 64-bit APIs to replace the current 32/64 kludges? Frankie 12:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  64 bit? 

message: Put any ideas, rumours, or hopes about features in Leopard here. -Technomagus 10:50, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They probably think that Mac OS X on ordinary, big white/black boxes is an insult to the OS. Perhaps they think that part of the 'Mac feel' is the all-in-one elitism in both hardware and software, and I don't think they want to lose that. It's as though they have a child that they're reluctant to let out into the big, wide, scary world of ugly boxes. Also, it's not too difficult to customize Windows or Linux to look exactly like Mac OS X. That's just a jocular opinion, by the way! Anyway, I shouldn't be talking about that because this page is for discussion about the article itself! Sorry. --Baryonic Being 17:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apple is a hardware company, not a software company. Their intent is to sell computing hardware which just happens to run their operating system. To allow users of standard Intel-compatible computer hardware to run OS X would be a financial suicide. I doubt Apple will ever support an OSx86 project. Freedomlinux 20:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rumours/Anticipation/Guesses

message: I have a Dell Dimension 2350, Windows XP SP2, and I'm due for a new type of system. I've been falling for a Mac system since seeing the Mac Mini. I don't have a problem with Windows security, using a Linksys NR041 hardware firewall, Mozilla Firefox, and not running random .exe's. Otherwise I'd just get a Mini right away. What I hate is the reputation of Microsoft being way too controlling, which Windows Vista looks to be even more of. I'm really looking forward to the end of 2006, and reading the reviews of the two systems. The next system I'm getting in early 2007 will be based on those :) 24.164.252.36 23:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First, the discussions are intended for discussing article edits, not anticipation of softwarre. And it won't run on your Dell. Windows users... Ccool2ax 14:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't look to me as though that's what he said, I thought he meant he was going to replace it. —JeremyBanks Talk 04:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Ccool2ax, that was a highly inappropriate comment to make. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 23:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who else can't wait? 

message: Someone removed this insertation with the claim it is factually wrong:
:As some version of the Leopard retail release DVD will be compatible with Intel processors, it is speculated that will provide hackers who wish to run Mac OS X on their Intel and AMD based computers with a simpler and for some, more ethical way to obtain a DVD which can be used to install Mac OS X onto their unauthorised systems with appropriate modifications. However this practice may still be illegal even if the DVD was legally purchased and the OS is not installed on any other system. Currently, most hackers obtain a copy of the developer install kit for said purpose.
I clearly specified that the practice may be illegal, therefore the claim it is factually wrong because the Apple license specifies you may only use it on one Apple computer is rather bizarre. It is a undisputable fact that some people currently are uncomfortable with installing a downloaded developer kit version of Mac OS X for ethical reasons. Most anecdotal evidence suggests a number of these people would feel more comfortable if they could legally acquite a copy of Mac OS X which they could then install on to their unauthorised machines, even if such a practice is technically illegal.
Okay the next issue is why I say it "may" be illegal. Although the Apple license clearly forbids this practice, this doesn't necessarily make it illegal. In most countries (don't know about the US), legal agreements can't violate local laws, if they do, these terms are void. There is speculation that various license terms which forbid a user from installing software on unauthorised systems may be in violation of local laws. AFAIK, this has never been tested in court either way. Therefore, we can't say for sure that it would be illegal just because the Apple license agreement applies it is... Nil Einne 16:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a source for this speculation?  Or is it just your personal opinion? AlistairMcMillan 18:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hacking Mac OS X for installation 

message: I removed the "v10.5" from this article because Apple has not mentioned a version number in relation to Leopard and Wikipedia shouldn't contain unsourced speculation. My edits were immediately reverted. I don't want to get into an edit war so I'm not going to make any more changes, but I still think the version numbers should go. There's every chance they'll change the numbering scheme if they think the current one is getting tired or a different one would be easier to market. --Dtcdthingy 02:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The final version of Boot Camp will be available as a feature in the upcoming Mac OS X version 10.5 'Leopard.'"  — ShaneCavanaugh 06:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Go to http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc05/, start watching at about the 18 minute mark.  Pay particular attention to the big screen behind Steve. AlistairMcMillan 19:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version number 

message: I'm sure that a picture of the design of the box / CD was shown in a Steve Jobs keynote.  Anyone know if this is true?  I've had a quick google but couldn't find anything. Ed 16:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Box Picture? 

message: * Is this not speculated for 10.5? pattersonc 01:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not by anyone credible. AlistairMcMillan 01:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  http://www.apple.com/getamac/fast.html In particular, the second paragraph (next to the Core Duo CPU) 88.112.177.18 07:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is referring to Boot Camp, which is most likely going to be built into 10.5. — Wackymacs 07:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wine (Win32 API)? 

message: I propose we rename this to Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard. Does anyone have documents showing that apple calls this v10.5?-- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 13:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That question is already asked and answered on this very talk page. And I oppose renaming, if that wasn't clear. :) -- Steven Fisher 17:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: All of the Mac OS X pages should stay consistent with one another. Behun 20:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: :" when Microsoft at that time was planning on releasing Windows Vista, which is seen as the competitor of OS X by many"
Not sure it matters, but I agree with the anon here that this should be left out; it seems like an ultimatly pointless aside that diverts from the main topic, regardless of whether jobs mentioned it in his keynote speech. RN 17:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was assuming this release of OS X was timed to coincide in some way with Vista.  Wasn't that the point of Jobs mentioning Vista there?  I could be just imagining/mis-remembering it though.  AlistairMcMillan 18:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vista mention in intro edit war 

message: This is an image of a banner from WWDC, I don't know much about copy-write but The image is of a CD of Leopard.  
http://guides.macrumors.com/Image:Wwdc2006.jpg#file
http://greaterstuff.com/google/perspectivefixed.jpg
Maybe the CD could be cut from the Image and put into the article.  Then again WWDC is only a couple days away so maybe we sould just wait to get quality images? --TrevorLSciAct 21:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Wikipedia:Images#Obtaining_images.  Aside from the fact that the quality of the resulting image would awful, this wouldn't even approach being a free image.  AlistairMcMillan 23:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: See . Cheers! Peter S. 20:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garbage collection confirmed 

message: spaces should have something on the new application.
:No, Spaces should either remain a redirection to Gaps or become a disambiguation page with links to Gaps and to a "Spaces (software)" page for Spaces in OS X.
:Feel free to write the "Spaces (software)" page; that's what a Wiki is all about.... Guy Harris 20:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just started the article, I'll change the Spaces page to a disambiguation one. mensch • t 21:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spaces should have its own article. 

message: Did anyone else notice that at no point during the WWDC presentation was Leopord addressed as OS X v. 10.5? Can someone with a preview release (or currently at WWDC) please "About this Mac" a box and see what it says? Maybe I missed it, but maybe Apple is going away from numeric versioning and going over to names? Is there any confirmation that Leopord will be released as OS X v10.5, the current article title? jugander (t) 01:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Leopard Server Sneak Peek page refers to it as "Mac OS X Server version 10.5 Leopard", and the Boot Camp press release says "The final version of Boot Camp will be available as a feature in the upcoming Mac OS X version 10.5 'Leopard.'".  In addition, the Leopard Sneak Peek page refers to "Mac OS X Tiger" rather than "Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger", although that could conceivably indicate some de-emphasis of version numbers (Microsoft have out-and-out dropped version numbers - it's "Windows XP", not "Windows NT 5.1"). Guy Harris 03:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks. That Microsoft transition is what I had in mind, just wanted to make sure the current article title was warrented. jugander (t) 04:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a quick point that's not really relevant to the main discussion: Windows continues to use version numbers; they just don't advertise them to the consumer. "Windows XP" is, in fact, "Windows NT 5.1", but only those involved deeper than the normal home user would know that. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 17:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official name 

message: Does anyone know have a rumor about if there will still be Classic Environment in 10.5? The original developer preview (9A241) doesn't come with Classic (from what I can tell). Thanks! --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 17:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't heard anything -- even a rumor -- about Classic being dropped from a reliable source. Steven Fisher 16:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classic support? 

message: If you're going to constantly revert the sentence about iTunes 7's interface, could you at least replace it with something that doesn't read like it was written by a high school student? --thickslab 17:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see your objection. The sentence is grammatical, and even superior to the one it replaces. If you're going to continue to revert this, you're going to need a better reason than a made-up grammatical error. Steven Fisher 17:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're the one who reverted without supplying any reason beyond "it's a better starting point." You replaced two clear sentences with one long rambling sentence that has worse flow. You also removed the part that clarifies that the Leopard release from WWDC doesn't have any interface changes. --thickslab 17:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you or did you not revert claiming "ungrammatical"? If you want to revert for some other reason, go ahead. I'm just calling you on this one. Steven Fisher 18:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously I did.  You replaced two clearly written, gramatically correct sentences with a run-on sentence that had a nonsensical comma, flowed poorly, and managed to contain less information. You want a better explanation that "It's poorly written" from me, yet all you offer is "it's a better starting point." Whatever. --thickslab 20:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, I said it was a better starting point and that I was going to edit it. And then... I did! You claimed there was a grammatical issue when there wasn't. Again, I am not objecting to you reverting. I am objecting to you reverting and claiming there was a grammatical issue. I spent quite some time looking for a significant error, as opposed to less-than-optimal wording, while preparing my edit. I don't really think this is a "whatever" situation, but nor do I think it's that important. But we all need to do a better job of writing edit summaries. -- Steven Fisher 23:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aqua motifs 

message: I've removed the advert tag because I don't believe that it applies. The article does not urge users to upgrade, and doesn't seem to spin available information one way or the other. The article does have the future software template applied to it and it's clear the software is not shipping yet, which I think adequately covers why there's no upgrade issues listed. -- Steven Fisher 22:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advert