Talk:MacOS/Archive 6

message: To User:Esheldon: I don't know what "new feature" you are talking about. Look at the given image, then tell me how you can distinguish between items without a mouse over, and this is a screenshot of the latest Dock version in OS X 10.4.8. Now I removed your modifications, but if you can explain it better, or if you are approved by at least other wikipedian, then maybe it will be suitable to be in the article. Dravick 08:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you crank up the Dock magnification, you can sort of tell the difference - I popped up the main pages of the Wikipedia and the Uncyclopedia, and then minimized them both to the Dock; at maximum Dock magnification, you can tell the difference between the globe and the potato, but at normal size, it might not be possible to tell the difference (you can tell by the color, but if you don't know what you're looking for...).  (I.e., the feature exists, at least as of 10.4.8, but whether it makes enough of a difference is another matter.  Then again, I never minimize documents to the Dock, so perhaps I'm not the right person to speak about this....). Guy Harris 09:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, but that section is about closed documents anyway, so I don't think it applies Dravick 18:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I missed that you were specifically referring to "Closed documents".  I had never used, or seen anyone use, this feature. I tried it out and I agree it is completely useless (Esheldon 19:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dock's "new feature" 

message: Remember this infamous article from about a year and a half ago?  I remember it getting fairly wide coverage for a long time afterwards, especially the MySQL benchmark aspect of it.  Here's a Siracusa article with lots of links to relevant stuff, too.  Should we add this in?  I'm not really sure what the state of this criticism is now...  -/- Warren 04:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but keep it short. Remember that this information is relevant for relatively few people and article is already full of programming stuff. Nonetheless it's a great idea to add this. Try to search for other sources as well, I remember that there was some other article on kernel/server performance. Mac OS X is clearly lacking in this but it is really relevant to servers only.--Pethr 06:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: And please don't take all the stuff in the "infamous article" seriously - for example, the speculation that OS X threading is done in userland is completely wrong (each pthread has a Mach thread associated with it) - it's OK to talk about the numbers, but any statements about what the Darwin layer of OS X does by somebody who hasn't Read The Fine Code should be checked by Reading The Fine Code first. Guy Harris 09:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This is probably one of the most interesting responses to the Anandtech article.  From Peter Ammon, an Apple developer who works on Mac OS X: http://ridiculousfish.com/blog/?p=17  AlistairMcMillan 19:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kernel performance criticism 

message: There is a large mistake in the criticism of the dock section. The article describes it as taking up too much space and being cumbersome. This is not a reasonable claim, as the dock is completely resizeable. 75.16.164.211 14:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's a mistake, it's attributable to Tognazzini, the author of the critical article. He does acknowledge that it's resizeable, but doesn't see that as much help, saying "Yes, you can set it much smaller, but then you make it progressively more difficult to identify an icon without 'scrubbing' the screen with your mouse to reveal its label." Regardless, our job is not to provide counter-arguments but to report on the criticism that has been published elsewhere. MFNickster 19:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of the Dock

message: The timeline is really just an exhaustive history. It's taking up a large portion of this article which could be used for other purposes. I propose moving the bulk of it (as in the new features added in each version) to a new article with the timeline graphic. Thoughts? Chris Cunningham 10:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do, you will have to leave a summary here, as the article would otherwise stand incomplete without it. Titoxd(?!?) 05:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose splitting timeline into its own article 

message: Does it make sense to repeat the features of each version of the OS in this section when they are outlined, often in more detail, in their on their own pages? I suggest we remove the 'new features' lists from this page, and keep the summaries short (if there at all). I personally believe that it would be best to remove all details and make a list or table with but a handful of details.CtrlC CtrlV 21:10, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed a lot of details, which can all be found in their respective article. Dravick 23:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now this is done, surely the preceding body-text has to be re-written? It lists Tiger as being the latest version... (MonstaPro 15:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose making versions a list or table with fewer details 

message: Am I the only one to think that no one cares about the 'easter eggs' in Mac OS X, and that it should not be in Mac OS X article page ? Dravick 18:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You´re not the only one, I removed it. I´d liek to see a separate article on those things but it has certainly no place here. Thanks for pointing it out.--Pethr 19:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really don't think there is need for a separate article on Mac OS X easter eggs, especially since there hardly are any to talk of. AlistairMcMillan 19:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Putting aside the fact that there are very few easter eggs in Mac OS X, please read WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOTE. AlistairMcMillan 23:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easter Egg 

message: Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext is too short and too unique to Mac OS X to have its own article. I should be merged in here. Chris Cunningham 12:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the DSMOX.kext article is not really worth having as a separate article.  However where would you put it in this article?  It seems to trivial to be added to the Mac OS X v10.4 section or the other sections that touch on the Intel version of OS X.  Maybe it should go to the "Mac OS X v10.4" or "Apple Intel transition" article.  AlistairMcMillan 18:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Moved suggestion to Mac OS X v10.4#Trivia. Dravick 02:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext 

message: Changed the pronunciation from IPA characters to 'Mac O-S Ten'. I think this makes it more readily understood. Also it makes it accurate for international readers. Oliverkroll 18:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Wikipedia's manual of style regarding pronunciation.  Also don't understand why you say changing from IPA makes it accurate for international users, when that is in fact the entire purpose of IPA.  If you don't know English, you don't know how to pronounce "Mac O-S Ten" and many languages don't even use the Latin alphabet.  —bbatsell ¿? 18:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with User:Bbatsell. 'Mac O-S Ten' is not pronunced à la english in many or most other languages, so it certainly does not make it accurate for international readers. Dravick 19:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. O-S Ten? A what? That would be the likely reaction:)--Pethr 22:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant readers who speak non-American varieties of English. /mak əʊ ɛs tɛn/ would be more like my pronunciation. Of course the IPA system has advantages, but the main point here is that X is pronounced like Ten, and I was just trying to put that across more straightforwardly. Oliverkroll 11:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Oliverkroll. I don't think "Mac OS" is hard to pronounce at all. To use IPA for that (that look like Greek to most of us anyway) is definitely overkill in my opinion. The only tricky part is how to pronounce "X," and here it suffices to add a comment that it's officially pronounced "ten." iNic 23:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reasons why IPA is included has already been explained Nil Einne 11:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: There are still some citations missing. Also, if it's possible to find references outside of Apple for the information attributed to them, I'd highly recommend doing so. The Prominent Features section should be expressed inline instead of with a list (possibly merged with the Description section) and rigorously examined to conform to NPOV. The points outlined in Criticisms would be better expressed using of broader language and integrated into their corresponding portions of the article. The current Criticisms section seems like more of a Prominent Critics section than a general view and could certainly stand to be rewritten. Noclip 18:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you need to be on the list of participants to review articles for GA status? I just checked and you were not on the list. Also, Inline citations are not mandatory according to the criteria. I agree with the primary sources thing. Sources not from Apple should not be used unless absolutely neccessary. Prominent features is fine as a list I think. There is no reason to merge Prominent features with description either. I see no problems with the language in critism, though I agree with the "Prominent Critics" comment. Honestly reading some parts of your GA review made me feel like you were reviewing an Article for FA criteria. In my opinion all that needs to be improved are the References and Criticisms sections. Also, I already am on the GA review list of participants. This article will remain on hold. Funpika 03:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I understand it, you don't actually need to be on that list. It just says if you're doing a lot of reviews you may want to add yourself to it. The only requisite is that active editors for particular articles should not review it, due to the conflicting interests. With that said, I agree with your comments Funpika, and I believe the general criteria for a good article have been meant, though may be not for a "A" article or "FA" (see Wikipedia assessment guide).  Nja247 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There also need to be more in-line citations. Jolb 02:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In-line citations are not mandatory for a Good article. Funpika 00:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA on hold

message: I have gone over the GA criteria and this article multiple times, and have decided that this article is currently meeting GA criteria. Congratulations! Funpika 01:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Passed 

message: Hi. I noticed that you said Apple uses the logos for 10.4 and 10.5 to officially represent Mac OS X. I'm thinking that this is probably due to the fact that these are the current/future versions, but I'm not sure. Can you please point me to a place where Apple represents OS X (not in reference to the current version or Leopard) with the X for 10.4 or 10.5? I believe that the main logo for OS X is actually the blue-glass one used for 10.0 and 10.1. Let me explain my reasoning. For one, if you go by the most recent version, you would actually have to choose between the logos for 10.4 and 10.5. Also, the blue-glass "X" was the first to represent OS X. Subsequent versions differed in their specific X for that version, just like they use different codenames, so as to differentiate the versions. However, the original blue-glass X is still used by Mac. Do a spotlight search on your Mac for "mac" (or "logo" or something, I forgot how I found the blue-x from my mac actually). You should see at least one (maybe several) blue-glass "X" gif. Also, open your home folder, and then open Sites. Index.html is a sample website, displaying the blue-glass X. Right-click that and press properties. You will see that Mac calls it the "Mac OS X logo" (even though I'm running Tiger). I'll let you decide, but I think that actually the blue-glass logo would be appropriate for the Mac OS X article, since that article is not specifically about the most recent version of OS X, but rather the general group of operating systems. Althepal 18:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW: would you be able to remove the background from the logo for Tiger, as well? Althepal 18:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Althepal 01:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, the "System" folder icon appears as a blue-glass X upon a folder icon. Althepal 05:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I will accept this, and I appreciate the research done. I'm still confused as to why Apple predominantly uses the 10.1 logo in logos and graphics which ship with current Macs. Althepal 01:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generic OS X Logo 

message: How many of you actually use Mac OS X? Currently the article reads In some cases, this makes it impossible to distinguish between different documents from the same application without moving the mouse pointer over the icons, as they only show their parent application's icon. The parent application's icon? What the hell is that? They show the same icon as they show in the Finder. If that icon has been customized, they'll show that icon. If you've changed your file open settings so that all .PNG files open with Preview, including those created with Photoshop, it will show the Preview icon, despite Photoshop being its "parent" application. My wording, which has since been removed, addresses this correctly: Files added to the Dock have the same icons as they do in the Finder, making them impossible to distinguish (without mousing over them to find out their filenames) unless the icon has been customized prior to the file's addition to the Dock. I'm not going to enter into an edit war, but honestly people, if you don't have Mac, don't edit this, and if you do, actually try it on your machine. —lensovet–talk – 18:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please look at the screenshot, where does the Word document icon come from?  Obviously I'll defer to your greater knowledge being that you are a Mac user and I've never even seen a Mac, but I thought the document icons came from the Word.app bundle.  But hey what do I know?  AlistairMcMillan 19:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the icon (by default, though it can be changed) is assigned by Microsoft Word, but it is not the same as Word's icon - i.e. the icon that the Application itself has, which the current wording seems to imply. I'll try tweaking. --Scott Wilson 19:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now the wording seems to imply that the icon is the same as Finder's, i.e. the smiley face. MFNickster 19:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, I see what you're saying. I've had another stab at it, though; it implied that the dock always showed the default icon. Nonetheless, I'm still not happy with it - it sounds rather awkward. --Scott Wilson 22:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a good thing to try to improve a section, but it is even better to try it after reading the source article (in that case, Togazzini's website). Wording might have been unclear, but we are not morons who likes to bash Mac OS X because w3 rU11333zzzz 0n 0uR 1337 W1nD0Z B0XX. I mean we all use Mac OS X daily, but it isn't perfect. Dravick 21:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did read the article, and I did look at the screenshot. Both are misleading. First off, again, no one explained the concept of a parent application. Again, the icon is simply the same as is displayed in the Finder for that file (and folders too, btw). That is all. If I have my word files opening in Pages, it will be different. If I right-click a file, choose Get Info, and paste the picture of my cat in place of the current icon, then the dock icon will have a cat. Is this really that hard to understand? —lensovet–talk – 23:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No, that's still wrong. I can't suggest a better word cause I'm not buying your concept. My apologies for suggesting the Finder does something; you're right, it simply displays the information that's there. Regardless, the simple fact is that for all images created in Photoshop on my account, they will have Preview's icon, NOT Photoshop's, because I set it that way. To take your Word example, if Pages is my default application for opening Word files and I create a Word document with TextEdit, or Word, or any other program, they'll take the Pages icon and not the Word icon. And it really doesn't matter where the icon is located (nor is there a "standard" way of assigning icons to files from their creators). —lensovet–talk – 07:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No one cares whether it's all photoshop's icon or preview's, the fact is that when you put them in the Dock they're all the same, if they are the same file type, and you can't see the difference without your mouse over them. Dravick 12:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly "...because I set it that way."  Which is why we have the "...unless the user has modified it..." bit.  AlistairMcMillan 15:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Unless you minimize a document, it will not appear as a separate icon in the dock. It will appear under the icon for that program, which can be found by right-clicking it. If you minimize a document, you can see its name by rolling the mouse over it. It's not perfect, but it's not terrible either, and it does look more aesthetic than the taskbar in Windows. Althepal 18:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dock criticisms 

message: The stated release date of Leopard is "Spring 2007", not "second quarter 2007". I realise the Southern Hemipshere issue, but that's no excuse to introduce an outright factual inaccuracy. --82.45.163.4 18:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is ridiculous-- if Jobs said "Spring 2007" without elaborating, just report that. People can figure it out. There's no need for us to second-guess or explain on Apple's behalf. MFNickster 20:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again "second quarter" is materially different from "Spring". One has fixed boundaries, the other doesn't. Please stop putting words in Steve's mouth. --82.45.163.4 16:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed (don't know if you're replying to me, but that's what I was trying to say) MFNickster 17:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "second quarter 2007" 

message: I was with some friends and they were talking about (illegally) being able to install Mac OS X on a PC like a Dell.  I thought that was very interesting, is that very widespread, does it deserve a mention in the article?  Timan123 11:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not very widespread and it is already mentioned briefly in the article (at the end of the Hardware section).  AlistairMcMillan 12:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Installing on a PC 

message: There seems to be some confusion about what to call this computer. Is it Macintosh or simply Mac? We have Mac in Mac OS and iMac, but does that mean the original name Macintosh is dead? I haven't read or heard that and would like to have a reference to when that name was killed if this is the case. iNic 09:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mac and Macintosh are both trademarks of Apple, Inc. You can safely assume that "Mac" is short for "Macintosh," though it's best to leave product names exactly as Apple uses them. "Mac Mini" and "Mac Pro" are official names, but they are both computers in the Macintosh line. MFNickster 19:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don’t remember the last time I heard Apple use the name “Macintosh”. I think the full name may have been deprecated, and echo the request for a reference. —Frungi 04:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind—a discussion on pronunciation (ten vs eks) caught my eye, and Dravick referenced this Knowledge Base article (dated July 2004, last modified a year after) that says “Macintosh” twice. Two years is recent enough for me to not consider the name dead yet. —Frungi 04:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mac vs Macintosh

message: The current infobox screenshot is not sized at a web resolution. It had been downscaled at least once, but the most recent change is at original over-1000-px resolution. -BStarky 17:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Downscaled. Dravick 18:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox screenshot not in ''web resolution''