Talk:MacOS/Archive 2

message: The proper names of the Mac OS X operating system releases have "v" in them, like "Mac OS X v10.0". Apple uses "v10.0" on its web site and in its documentation. Calling it "Mac OS X 10.0" is incorrect. The "X" stands for "10", so "X 10.0" would be redundant. For an example of Apple's use, see . Please don't rename the Mac OS X release articles to names that aren't correct. - Brian Kendig 03:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 'v' in Mac OS X version names

message: Article mentions 8A425 in late March 2005 is the GM for Tiger. Various rumor sites say 8A428 in April 2005. Can anyone provide a solid reference for one or the other? If not, it should be removed until April 29th. --Steven Fisher 06:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove until Tiger is available. I work on Tiger at Apple, and things can change at the last minute - don't believe anything about it until you get a copy off a store shelf. Stan 13:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Done. Thanks for your input. :) --Steven Fisher 00:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Can someone please explain why so many people have a problem understanding that pre-release information is not final? This is so damn stupid. Guys, until the date ticks and it officially goes, it isn't set in stone. Apple could withdraw and re-issue the 10.4 build. Sure, it would be expensive, but they've done it in the past with previous releases. Leave it for now. It's better to be missing something than have bad information. Personally, I'm sick of making this edit, so I'm just cutting it out this time. Learn. --Steven Fisher 14:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably my own darn fault. I've edited the article to reflect the expected build number, the accidental shipping, and why 8A428 might not be the final release. Hopefully that will hold until the 29th. --Steven Fisher 14:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiger: 8A425 or 8A428? 

message: Is Core Data worthy of mention?
:Well, you just did, so it must be! It's an important piece of technology for developers, but it's of virtually no interest to end-users. It will probably get a mention on the Cocoa page, though that article is already way too long. Graham 07:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Core Data 

message: I think this section is a little off, and would like to change it. However, I'm not sure what to change it to. This is what I was thinking of. Any comments?
Current text:
: Apple claims that they use the term as a genericized trademark and that the cost of certification would make the OS prohibitively expensive, although The Open Group has stated that there is a US$110,000 upper limit on the cost of certification for one company.
Proposed replacement:
:Apple claims that they use the term as a genericized trademark and that the cost of certification would make the OS prohibitively expensive. The Open Group has stated that there is a US$110,000 upper limit on the cost of certification for one company. This limit is for The Open Group's certification process and does not include any development or testing support Apple may need to do, so both companies may be right simultaneously.
--Steven Fisher 03:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not an expert, but I expect it would be an internal project with a part-time manager and a couple experts as resources for the cerification process, plus some developers/designers for corrections. Stuff doesn't just happen. Or am I nuts? --Steven Fisher 11:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unix certification 

message: I see there's a revert war going on with regard to:
:rv - "Apple" is a singular noun, it's one corporation.
You all realize/realise that this is a difference between British English and American English, right? In British English, corporations are "collective nouns" (regarding all the members of the corporation) and therefore, plural. In American English, a corporation seems to refer more to "the body" ("corpus") and so is taken as singular.
In general, the Wiki policy with regard to "Corporate" articles is to set them in the version of English that is natural for the home of the corporation (so, in this case, America and American English). But if the article is already set in mostly British English, then it should stay uniformly that way until someone can se-set the entire article.
Atlant 11:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Collective nouns and British vs. American English 

message: Anyone have a source for Steve Jobs saying this? I couldn't find one. --Steven Fisher 23:26:57, 2005-08-22 (UTC)
:Okay, it's been over a month. I've pulled it. If anyone can provide a reference, they're welcome to put it back in. --Steven Fisher 05:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  very good beta release 

message: I am calling on our OS X contributors to update Common Unix Printing System - considering how important this subsystem is to OS X I really feel bad that the CUPS article doesn't even mention it alongside its mention of RedHat, Mandriva, KDE, etc. 
On another point: this is a great article for those who want to know the basics of OS X, and I must say it is very readable and well set out. However, I was wondering if someone could put together an Architecture of OS X article. Currently the Windows 2000 article has one, and I think that OS X would benefit from one also. This could then be summarised and added to this article. 
Anyway, take this as you will. Thanks for the informative article - I hope someone can take on board my constructive criticism and make this article even better! - Ta bu shi da yu 09:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How do I keep running into you in these OS articles? Seriously, I'll give the architecture article a shot. Niteice 23:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A call for help and a suggestion 

message: This may sound like a stupid question, but I'm new to using Mac (been using XP), and I can't seem to find the task manager (or the mac equivalent to one).  Does such a thing exist on Mac.  I know you can click on a program's icon at the bottom to "force quit" if it's not responding, but what do you do if you want to see how much of the computer's memory or cpu capacity is being used at any given time?...
:several ways to accomplish this. You can open a terminal window and type 'top'. This will give you the info you want, but it's very unixy and a bit technical. There is a graphical UI for top, which was supplieed with (I think) 10.2 and 10.3 but is NOT available in 10.4, as far as I can see - it's definitely gone from my machine. This is called 'Process Viewer' or 'CPU Monitor' or something like that. The Dev tools also give you something called 'BigTop' which is a much more details graphical interface for top.Graham 04:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's called 'Activity Monitor', and it's located in Utilities under Applications.  It is still present in Tiger. Bbatsell 06:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, and the simple way to just get a list of running applications is to type Command+Option+Escape, which brings up a 'task manager' window. All you can do here though is to force quit an app - it doesn't tell you anything about the memory usage, etc.Graham 04:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Task manager???

message: In the notable features section, it states that icons can be scaled up to 256x256 pixels.  In Finder on Mac OS X Tiger, I'm only able to scale icons to 128x128 pixels.  Is this a typo? or am I missing something here? Brianreading 07:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's my understanding that in Tiger, icns files can support icons up to 256x256, but most applications don't use icons of that size yet as there isn't much need (and they aren't supported on any previous OS).  See this Apple Developer article on resolution independence in Tiger.  I would say that the text describing the icons could be further clarified, as it's not very clear at the moment.  Bbatsell 07:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

text: At least in Jaguar, there was a hack to double the size of the Genie effect and the result was ugly, as the icon were not meant too be that big. I don't know if it was this 256 px size, though. Reply to David Latapie 19:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Icon Scaling?