Talk:Mac OS X Leopard/Archive 3

message: According to some reports there will be FLAC support natively. Is it worth a mention in the article? Viamp 21:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not if it comes from some person's blog... Wikipedia expects contributions to be based on reliable sources.  -/- Warren 23:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native FLAC support 

message: Dunno if anyone else here is a member of ADC, but I watched a few sessions from WWDC '06 that were recently release on iTunes. They mention a number of important new features for developers, including NSOperation, NSOperationQue, resolution independence in Cocoa, and 64-bit system frameworks. I'll add a segment on these features sometime soon unless someone else beats me to it. BeardedCat 06:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that the 64-bit system frameworks are already mentioned on the 10.5 page - that's the first item in the "New features" bulleted list.  (It's actually "libraries and frameworks"; not all the system libraries in OS X are frameworks, e.g. UN*X libraries such as libxslt, libpcap, ncurses, the Net-SNMP library, etc. aren't frameworks.) Guy Harris 08:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting though they are, the WWDC sessions are covered under NDA. Be careful about what you mention. Full 64-bit support has been confirmed by Apple on the public section of their web site: http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/64bit.html . Resolution independance has not been confirmed to my knowledge outside of NDA. The presence of the scaling factor property in the Quartz Debug tool distributed with the Tiger Dev Tools is a hint that it exists. Details on new frameworks with the exception of CoreAnimation have also not been formally disclosed to the public. We also need to cite sources for information here, and we can't reference information covered on ADC. -- Tim Bedford 82.196.42.132 15:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://developer.apple.com/leopard/overview/ mentions resolution independence for Carbon and Cocoa - and is accessible to at least one non-ADC member. Guy Harris 17:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Features announced in ADC on iTunes sessions 

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 18:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "second quarter 2007" 

message: People, you can't simply copy screenshots from Apple's web site and upload them to Wikipedia.  There is a very clear warning about this right on the upload page, which you had to scroll past, so there's really no excuse for not knowing this.  Repeated attempts to include copyrighted material in an article can result in being blocked from editing, so... don't do it!  This is an free encyclopedia, not an extension of Apple's marketing efforts.  Please review Wikipedia:Non-free content for more details.  -/- Warren 16:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, the clear warning you speak of means not to steal images from a web page or a search engine.  There are not images from a webpage, but are SCREENSHOTS, which when done correctly are completely legit. Further they are marked correctly, AND have rationales. What are you up to? Nja247 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Screenshots are images.  Apple's web site is a web site.  Now, read this carefully so that you can wrap your head around this vital detail (which Wikipedia has saw fit to put in large letters with a red box around it):  "Do not upload images found on websites".  Let me repeat:  Do.  Not.  Upload.  Images.  Found.  On.  Web sites.  Kapesh?  This isn't that complicated to understand!  Also, you can't justify the inclusion of several copyrighted images by simply tacking on a fair-use rationale; you're still expected to follow the rest of Wikipedia's non-free content policy, which has the expectation that non-free content will be used minimally in an article.  The general exception is this: when it comes to screenshots of software, the convention has been to allow for user-generated screenshots.  You'll see this all through the Windows articles... nothing comes from Microsoft.  If you can provide your own self-generated screenshots of Leopard, that'd be ideal. If not... well... leave it alone.  -/- Warren 16:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair use policy states that when there is no free equivalent available copyrighted image may be used (FU#1). The screenshots have been provided by Apple for the same purpose of visual identification as it will be used here, and there is previous publication of the content (#4). Since we cannot provide user generated images yet, I would say these two make provision for use of these images. However, it also states that it should be used minimally (#3a) and only when it significantly adds value to the article (#8). As such, providing so many images looks like a list of images, and it does not help to understand the features anymore than just one screenshot. Plus the features themselves are presented as a list. As such, by #8 of fair use policies listing the images is not allowed. But a generic image for use in the infobox may be, provided it is scaled down (to less than 500px width) before uploading. My vote would be for :Image:MacOSX10-5.jpg as this shows most of the new UI. --soum talk 17:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The pre-WWDC version of the page also had a Time Machine screenshot.  I never bothered with removing that one because it demonstrates something that's radically different than Yet Another iChat Screenshot, and I'd probably argue for its continue inclusion by saying that it's a good application of ignoring the rules.  I'd still like for someone to provide their own Time Machine screenshot, but people are under some pretty strict NDAs about these sorts of things.  -/- Warren 17:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats what I said, as long as it not just another screenshot, but rather something unique, images from these batch can be used without problem. Just including from inclusions sake (when there is so much copyrighted content apart from the UI itself) is what is not allowed. Maybe the finder shot (it includes the 3D dock, and the transparent menu bar) be included and the time machine one later. The desktop image does not show anything not present here. Or even better, the quicklook one. It disseminates all info from the finder one plus quicklook. That summarizes all the new features that is communicated by the screenshots. --soum talk 17:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or should the desktop image be preferred as it shows all the apps. Whatever, now that the discussion is going on, I think its time for unprotection. --soum talk 17:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Everyone knows that the warning is only for newbies who don't know any better, not for experienced editors with good rationales. There are no free replacements due to NDA. Besides, Apple posts pictures that are explicitly stated to be allowed on other websites. If I can find a link I'll put it here later. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 15:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of screenshots 

message: I don't want to read all the above, here's the summary - the images are not screenshots, as they were not taken by taking a screenshot.  They are images stolen from the Apple website by right-clicking and saving.  They are blatant copyright violations, and have all been deleted.  Screenshots taken by the uploader are acceptable under fair use criteria; these were not taken by the uploader, rather they were pinched from http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/ Neil ╦ 13:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From their website: no part of the Site and no Content may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, publicly displayed, encoded, translated, transmitted or distributed in any way (including “mirroring”) to any other computer, server, Web site or other medium for publication or distribution or for any commercial enterprise, without Apple’s express prior written consent.  Neil ╦ 13:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: See your talk page. Neil ╦ 13:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, my thoughts exactly. I posted a similar message over at the admin page, but thought it belonged her as well. Overall I am having a big problem with how things are being handled. The screenshot of OS X has been deleted twice now, and not under normal speedy delete policy, but directly by an admin replying about this subject. I'm not saying that's wrong, but not usual. Anyhow, my question is, why is the image Image:Windows_Neptune_Desktop.jpg valid for fair-use while the Leopard images were not? It's the same deal really, a screenshot from a website of unreleased software and no other alternative exists. I've read all 10 points regarding images in WP:FU and there's not an blatant issue with the Leopard images from those ten points. The only reason I see this being an issue is the policy of no images from websites, however again, the Windows image I'm using as an example was procured in the same exact manner, the difference being Microsoft likely did not give permission to screen-capture their unreleased alpha software, while Apple themselves have provided these screenshots on their site. I am looking for some clarification from someone not directly involved in this already (Warren, Neil) on why one image (the Windows one referenced above) is still on Wikipedia and the others are of Leopard are not. Further, I have contacted Apple about releasing one or more of the images under GFDL or CC, but who knows, and even if we got their permission; would that really change anything (unless of course released under one of the latter two licenses)? Heck, what if I took a screenshot of the open image from my web browser, lol (jk). Nja247 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neil is flat out wrong.  Uploading a screenshot from a website is usable under fair-use criterion.  Uploading a screenshot from the Apple website is OK provided the copyright holder is labelled with a suitable fair-use rationale. - hahnchen 11:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. This needs to be settled once and for all. We can claim the screenshots from the Apple website under fair use, given justifcation. If these will not suffice, or people protest, we can use images from the Apple “press” section on their website under fair use . Again, we will need a rationale, and the images will need to be scaled down. Can we come to a conclusion? Max Naylor 16:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this image is valid for fair use Image:Windows_Neptune_Desktop.jpg, then the Leopard images are too. That screenshot was copied off a website as well. Further, at least Apple released the Leopard screenshots, while the site hosting the Windows image doesn't seem to have received any permission from Microsoft to host an image displaying their copy-written OS.Whitneykitty 16:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Leopard screenshots can qualify as fair use.  There really is no argument to be had here, whoever pressed print screen is irrelevant. - hahnchen 17:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  Hahnchen, copying one screenshot is generally fine if it's impossible to produce our own screenshots; we can get away with that.  Copying five images from a web site into a single article is beyond the realm of acceptibility, however.  Part 3A of the non-free content policy is pretty clear about this: Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary.  We can (and should) provide a reference to Apple's web site so that the user can view galleries of images of things like new iChat features, but we should never copy copyrighted images from a web site to support a single sentence in an article.  The screenshot of Windows Neptune supports an entire article, and it easily meets all our fair-use criteria, which is why it has lasted so long in the encyclopedia.  -/- Warren 19:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with that Warren.  At no point have I ever questioned this.  I'm just stating that screenshots taken from a website can be OK for fair use on Wikipedia, and are not copyright violations.  Note that I've already mentioned that a suitable fair-use rationale is included, which in part addresses your concerns. - hahnchen 19:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Aye.  Well... User:OriginalGamer just uploaded another Leopard screenshot and hasn't provided a fair-use rationale.  I'll notify him on his talk page.  -/- Warren 01:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Well it was said by yourself (above) one image would be fine, so why not take a minute and provide a proper rationale for the image yourself? You seem to have investigated this issue more thoroughly than us, and that way it will have a proper rationale and there should be no more issues. Just a thought. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah why don't we all spend our time tidying up after other editors who can't be bothered to provide rationales after having been told approximately one hojillion times. AlistairMcMillan 11:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry but if you don't understand fair use claims, then you shouldn't be uploading images and claiming fair use. As far as I can see other editors have explained the problem here; each fair use image has to serve a purpose, multiple similar screenshots aren't needed. Leaving a mess for other editors to clean up is disrespectful of other people's time. AlistairMcMillan 15:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's been established that we're talking about one image; the current image, and no others. Further it's been established one image is suffcient and within fair use. Wikipedia is a community effort, thus if someone is knowledgeable on something they should take the couple of minutes of their time to resolve the issue. Your statement implies that you're capable and completely understand fair use. Therefore, why don't you stop wasting time arguing over nothing and amend it? Nja247 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slight tangent on the subject of amending image uploads. Please note that under "Source" you are supposed to tell people exactly where you got an image from. For example, :Image:Leopard Spotlight.jpg. Earlier today I added in the source of that image for you. I tried to find the source of :Image:Leopard Menubar.png but failed, perhaps you could add it in for us now. AlistairMcMillan 15:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Chill out. I did fix the issue with one image, and when I couldn't fix the issue with the other I asked you to. If I could have fixed both I would have done. AlistairMcMillan 15:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I think it should probably be mentioned that Apple has backed out of providing 64-bit frameworks for Carbon.. --Steven Fisher 23:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No 64-bit Carbon 

message: There should be some information about how much does it cost if one updates from Mac OS X10.4.x to 10.5.
Does anyone even know about how much it would take?
91.153.1.166 20:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: $129 as has always been the case and $199 for a family pack. As Jobs said, the basic, premium, professional, enterprise and ultimate edition are all $129 (obviously making fun on microsoft (http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/115312/apple-reveals-leopards-new-desktop-design.html). I'll add info to the article. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information about update cost? 

message: Can somebody using a recent v10.5 developer release update the screenshot on this article? I know its informative enough, but a more aesthetic and less cluttered looking one would be better for an article. (one like the OS X 10.4 image that shows the finder open, about this mac window, and a spotlight search..
--Alegoo92 20:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bad idea. Mac OS X v10.5 is copyrighted, and anyone with access to it is under NDA --Steven Fisher 21:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Anything in the screenshot up there should at the very least have the new wallpaper as the background, not some user's custom wallpaper because the new look is a feature Apple is making a big deal about. --Duckfootx 19:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  User:Aanhorn replaced the screenshot we've had for a while with a custom one with some desktop background I've never seen before, a non-default dock size, and Adium.  I've reverted this change as it does not accurately depict OS X Leopard.  -/- Warren 21:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The background represents the OS? Apple's whole idea was to make it nicer when users set their desktops as photos. Anyhow, Apply is REALLY over-playing the space theme with the latest background. See http://img516.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture4sp9.png -Althepal 05:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wait, hang on... you're saying this really is the default background for the latest build?  .... I... really don't know what to make of that.  Well if someone can produce a screenshot in an acceptable size (1024x768 is good) that represents the default desktop as it appears on first use, and doesn't have any third-party tools visible, then let's get that up.   -/- Warren 15:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, the default background is the wet grass. --Duckfootx 16:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Duckfootx- the latest wallpaper for Mac OS X v10.5 is not the grass- it's a black/pink photo of space Alegoo92 22:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, that really is the latest default background. I guess people didn't like the wet vista/longhorn grass. It does look way too pink for my taste, and I doubt they are going to keep it, but it might as well go up in the article. It only has Apple software running in that screenshot. Althepal 04:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The screenshot of the new build that I removed had Adium in it.  It'd also be nice if we could get a screenshot at a lower resolution than 1680x1050... such a high resolution makes the UI elements really hard to make out.  -/- Warren 05:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshot 

message: Should the addition of Wikipedia to the Dictionary app be noted?  See . -GnuTurbo 17:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navel gazing 

message: Are you really sure this link  works? Please make sure of it. 
Regards, User:Kushal_one --69.150.163.1 17:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link help 

message: What are we going to do with all those unreleased builds' build info? I'm talking about all the information on the testing version of Mac OS X v10.5, as listed here. I'm thinking that once Leopard officially comes out, this information will no longer be encyclopedic, so we can just delete it and put official, released builds here. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 15:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Either remove completely, or possibly have a development of Leopard article. It may be redundant to be honest, but it was done for Vista. There's many articles dealing with Vista alone on Wikipedia (main article, development article, criticisms article, versions article, new features article, technical details of new features article, etc etc.) Personally I think the build release history will be of no use once released. Obviously some dates and builds are important, such as the first preview and then the first feature complete build (though these can be put into paragraphs), but aside from that nothing is important. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A big part of the problem with writing a "Development of OS X 10.whatever" article is that Apple is far more secretive about the progress they're making than Microsoft is.  Most people who come into contact with Leopard are under fairly strict NDAs, whereas with Vista, you'd get literally dozens of individual bloggers at Microsoft talking about new builds, things to look for & expect, and so on.  It's also easy to find reliable, third-party reviews of individual builds.  Who knows, maybe the next version of OS X after Leopard will be different.   -/- Warren 05:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Heh I was about to reply to my own comment saying that I agree, because I had forgotten I wrote it. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 16:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version numbers 

message: What about Directory - a application detailed in Leopard.
:"Directory" or "Directory Utility"?  Both need to be added.Urbin 12:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Directory

message: :Image:Leopard 9A559 Desktop.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 13:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Leopard 9A559 Desktop.png

message: Please??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.190.152.82 (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody who does is likely to be fired by Teh Steve if they tell you - or is Teh Steve, who I seem to remember having indicated that his ship won't leak from the top.  Guy Harris 21:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone edited the article to say 10/26, but I checked their source, and it doesn't have any mention of an exact release date.  Seems like this should be taken out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.42.134 (talk) 17:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a lot of rumor going around that it's going to be the 26th (see ). Worth mentioning? Sloverlord 18:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Whoever keeps editing back in that the 26th is the release date, PLEASE STOP.  Your source has no mention of this date.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.151.42.134 (talk) 02:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What he said.  Rumor sites are NOT references.  If Apple doesn't announce it, it's not "slated" for any particular date.  If you put a date in, point to a PRIMARY source (which means a site in a domain such as "apple.com", not some "AppleSecrets.com" site) that gives the date; don't just leave the old reference in to a page that doesn't give the date. Guy Harris 02:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone know the exact release date??? 

message: Has anyone else noticed that the second paragraph is not being shown properly in Firefox, despite the code being correct, and showing up properly in IE? According to the code, the sentence should read, "According to Apple, Leopard contains over 300 changes and enhancements, though not all are easily apparent from the beta version." However, on the actual page, the entire sentence up to the second last work has disappeared, such that only the last word, "version" is shown. 210.176.70.2 03:26, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HTML Problems on Firefox, anyone? 

message: Hey! Someone update this and add the October 26 release date!
-Chris  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisshorngod (talk • contribs) 16:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody did so a while ago - for a popular topic such as this, it's rather unlikely that you'll have a long wait between a press release and an update - but you could have been bold and done so yourself.  Guy Harris 19:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release date announced  

message: I just saw a google tech talk for "Vmware Fusion" by one of the tech leads. It turns out that (previously under NDA) the kernel is only running at 32 bit. I'm confused, how does it run 64 bit applications then?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.192.216.102 (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Through a lot of clever hackery (and some small bits of 64-bit code in the x86 kernel, to handle a few things such as saving and restoring the extra 8 registers). :-)  That was also true in Tiger, which could run 64-bit apps as long as they didn't use any system libraries other than libSystem (which ruled out all GUI apps).  Guy Harris 22:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Using Intel's 32-bit emulation extensions. The "native" system is 64 bits, but the descriptors for kernel code flip it into 32-bit-emulated mode whenever you're in-kernel.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tqbf (talk • contribs) 00:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kernel is 32 bit only 

message: There is an image of the dock with "stacks" in the article, but that is from a much older beta (with a slightly different dock), and it doesn't even show the stacks fanning out or anything. Althepal 19:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure we'll have much better screenshots in a few days, once everybody can get their hands on the final product.  Be patient... :-)  -/- Warren 12:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've uploaded a screenshot of a stack displayed as a fan and a grid (:Image:Leopard-stacks-fan-grid.png).  The old image is here: Image:LeopardDock.png.  Then I made the mistake of reading the discussion above on screenshots: to clarify, I took a screen-shot of my own computer, and uploaded it, so I used the same Non Free/Fair Use tag as the main image on this page.  If that's not right, hopefully someone will set me straight. Urbin 11:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, now where's the new dock? ;) (Hey, does anyone really know what comes after mac os 10.5?) Althepal 02:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mac OS X 10.6, I would say. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 16:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, probably. I thought OS X was only going to be for 10 years, and that would give Apple a couple years to make OS 11, but it would be nice if there would be any info out there of what is planned... Still waiting for an updated dock with "stacks"... Althepal 22:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace dock image 

message: Tidied up this section by alphabetising by name of software/feature and making the naming a little more consistent.  Probably more to do (splitting Front Row and Photo Booth up, etc), and it's begging for separate articles on Podcast Producer and Back to my Mac.Urbin 12:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: End User Features

message: I note that these sections are, at the moment, almost entirely duplicate. System Requirements is in list form, but Compatibility is in prose form. I suggest one of them be merged with the other. However, that leaves Unix certification not really belonging in the mix. Is the Unix certification a developer feature? Any thoughts? --Steven Fisher 22:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compatibility & system requirements 

message: I think we can moot the argument about whether this is a "notable" critique; it's been picked up in The Register, InternetNews.com, and VNUNET.COM. 
Arguments against? 
From a validity standpoint --- and validity doesn't matter in this case, what matters is whether the criticism actually happened, and was notable --- The Java 6 thing has much sharper teeth than the BS APE thing. Apple really did do something to irritate Java devs, even if I don't happen to care about them.  
--- tqbf 01:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care about them either (actually, I'm kind of glad they can't impersonate applications anymore). But it's notable and appropriate for inclusion. --Steven Fisher 02:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The issue with the Java criticism was its source, not its content. Something a little more detailed than one short sentence would be good, though... for example, why is this an issue? Who is making the criticism? Are there counter-arguments available? Don't force people to go to the references to find out what the heck is going on...  -/- Warren 02:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  A SWAG at a rewrite. I'm not married to it. --- tqbf 02:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It might be worth mentioning that Java updates have historically come out after Mac OS X releases, not with them. The only source I have for this at the moment is this one, which probably isn't notable enough to use. It is linked to from Daring Fireball, though, which might be. I don't know. Steven Fisher 16:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, the counterargument could be better addressed, because it is eventually going to prevail --- modulo WP:CBALL. --- tqbf 16:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Java Criticism 

message: In the Developer section: "The fully functional (beta quality) zfs.kext is available for download to anyone with a free account at http://developer.apple.com"
This developer-level beta-ware and things like it (for instance all the cool stuff in WebKit built from current code) should not be in the general article about Leopard. I think you would have to find several credible sources than can explain why this beta-ware is important and create a separate section or, more likely, article. --Charles Gaudette 18:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, you could make the argument that Apple could supply a "beta" ZFS kext for any version of OS X. Nobody is going to use this ZFS kext in production. --- tqbf 19:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed beta "Full" ZFS 

message: There are numerous articles and level headed discussions online that cast doubt on the credibity of the researchers' analysis. Both logs and sreenshots are provided.
*  original claim
*  discussion on Ars Technica
*  screenshots and counter claim
:I wrote this section, along with the majority of the "criticisms" section. I disagree with most of the criticisms in this article, and welcome improvements to make them more balanced. That said: the security criticisms of Leopard I agree strongly with.
:You don't need my permission to improve the security criticisms text in this article. But I will ask that you be careful. Some points I hope you keep in mind:
:* There are many more security criticisms in Leopard that go past the firewall; the firewall doesn't even have the majority of the media coverage anymore. The section you're addressing covers all of them.
:* The firewall critique itself has extensive media coverage. We cannot eliminate well-sourced criticisms from the article; they are there forever now. We can, however, rebut them with NPOV counterarguments and well-sourced facts.
:* We cannot inject original research into the article, and we must be careful (though I believe far less careful than WP:RS --- this is not a bio of a living person) to cite the best possible sources --- plenty of Apple-negative material has been shot out of this article for citing discussion group posts.
Thanks for looking into this subject and helping with the article!
--- tqbf 19:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism about security researchers' claims about Leopard's new firewall. 

message: I agree that the copy written for the Bluetooth critique was imperfect. However:
* It appears to be true, and is a significant factual criticism of Leopard. I had no idea, but wow, how irritating that they took that feature out! I used it a lot.
* It is not true that discussion group posts are ineligible as sources for this article. We are again applying the standards of WP:BLP to an article about an operating system. WP:BLP is rigorous to avoid libel. We run no risk of that here.
How can we rewrite this section? With no comments, I'm going to revert it back in and strip out the iPhone thing.
--- tqbf 19:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forum postings are not reliable sources, for the simple fact that anyone can log in and start posting whatever nonsense they want. From WP:RS : "A reliable source is a published work regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." AlistairMcMillan 20:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right that it's not a high-quality source. However, it's almost certainly true and verifiable. It is therefore not an exceptional claim.  It's a valuable addition to the article. --- tqbf 20:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bluetooth Critique 

message: Has anyone taken the time to read Dave Nanian's blog post? All due respect to the guy but he isn't criticising Leopard, he is justifying why people should continue to buy his product. Pointing out the one big feature that his product has that Leopard doesn't. Saying Time Machine is cool but here's a good reason to buy SuperDuper is not criticism. AlistairMcMillan 19:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone wants to find another source, I do think the information does belong.  But clearly that is not a reliable, neutral source.  V-train 19:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It took 3 minutes to source this to something besides a blog. I don't disagree with you, Alistair. But please make your point by balancing the text of the critiques, instead of erasing them. The reverts are not improving the quality of the article. --- tqbf 20:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We've now sourced the hell out of this critique. Awesome rewrite, Alistair. --- tqbf 20:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time Machine criticism 

message: It would be wise for a separate article to be created simply about OS X pricing. It should be a table showing the prices in all the currencies that it's sold in and of course the family packs and also the server version pricing. It would unclutter this and every single OS X article as there could simoly be a section titled "pricing" with a link to See article: Mac OS X pricing. It sounds quite reasonable and I may work on it myself. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if the topic is notable enough for a whole dedicated article. AlistairMcMillan 00:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually I did what I said above, and merged the info from the article I created into the main Mac OS X article and then linked to the relevant section in the intro of this article. I did this due to someone already complaining on my talk page about the merits of the pricing info as an article itself. I pointed out the Windows article to him and he then went and deleted all the pricing from that article and just left summaries of the versions, though I'm sure it will be reverted with a possible war that I'm staying well clear of. Cheers mates. Bedtime. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Vista pricing scheme is notable. The Leopard pricing scheme is not. --- tqbf 03:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pricing idea

message: In the Criticism section:
Leopard has been criticised for only offering limited choice of languages - about 20 - in which the interface can be viewed, Apple concentrating on providing only for languages of their most important markets. Rival system Windows is available in numerous languages including many lesser spoken ones; Free and Open Source operating systems - like Linux or the BSD-family free systems (OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, etc.) - usually support a multitude of languages.
The last sentence gives me the impression that some Linux/BSD-family distros offer more than 20 languages. (Windows is mentioned because the cited article says it supports more languages than Mac OS.) Is this true? Can someone either provide a reference to a distro that has more than 20 languages for a release or remove/reword the words so that it better relates to the criticism? I don't see the point of mentioning Linux/BSD if it does not support or reject the criticism. --121.45.211.133 14:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.  I've removed the Linux/BSD part of this statement.   -/- Warren 15:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Linux/BSD language set unneccessary? 

message: The wiki page reads: "The icon also reflects the current date even when the application is not running. In previous versions, the icon would remain at July 17th until the application was run." This is not correct.
In Leopard, the iCal dock icon does indeed update it's self, however in Panther the iCal dock icon would update and remain updated provided the user launch iCal once a day. When Tiger came out, this feature was for some reason removed, causing the icon to revert to July 17th when iCal is exited. All Leopard did was re-enable this feature, and make the icon auto update without having to launch iCal.
Nabeel_co 05:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info on iCal Dock Date Wrong! 

message: I was searching for this and it took me quite a while to find it. I would suggest changing the name to "Mac OSX Version 10.5 "Leopard" " this will make this page easier to read. (I cannot find how to do this though). Earlier I madea page called leopard System which had a link to here and now redirects to hear.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stealth500 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No other OS X version page has the cat name in it, and people have managed to find them.  Note that if you just look for "Leopard", it takes you (as it should), to the page for leopards, but that page points you to the "leopard" disambiguation page, which has a link to the page for 10.5.  The same applies to the page for tigers and the "tiger" disambiguation page, the latter of which links to the page for 10.4; the page for panther is a disambiguation page which links to the page for 10.3, and the cats for 10.0, 10.1, and 10.2 have disambiguation pages that point to the OS X pages. Guy Harris (talk) 18:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There is something called a redirect as well. Use it to create as many aliases of the title as you want. --soum talk 07:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So does tha mean I could make a few redirrects here? I will go do that.
thanks --Stealth500 (talk) 12:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title Change Needed

message: I Just found an Image of the Mac OS X Leopard Box in Higher Resolution. I'm not experienced when it Comes to Uploading Pictures, So if Anyone Knows how to, here is the Link: http://www.curtsheller.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/leopard-box.png --Christian Cardozo 19:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better Image for Leopard Packaging 

message: What would be really good (it's what I came to this page looking for in fact) would be a summary of the reviews in magazines and authoritative websites. The criticism section has some useful points, but by itself it is disjointed from the rest of the article. At the moment the article is basically a feature list which could have been compiled simply by looking at apple.com and no other sources. Ireneshusband (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also under the critism section why isn't there more?  EG: many of the bugs like copying files, incompatibilty etc etc.  It needs more outside sources and a general expansion. -Mbatman 72 00:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews? 

message: Does Moc OS 10.5 run on non-apple-systems w/ Intel-CPUs? Does it run on AMD64-CPUs?
I ask this question, because all of these systems use the AMD64/Intel64 architecture, which is also used on Intel-Macs. --Qaywsxedc (talk) 07:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk pages aren't really for discussion of the topic of the article, they're for discussion of the article itself, so this isn't really the place to ask the question, but see Apple-Intel architecture and the OSx86 Project Wiki for information on that (the short answer is "Apple doesn't intend it to do so, and make efforts to prevent it from working, but some people have managed to make it work anyway.") Guy Harris (talk) 07:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  system requirements 

message: I think that 3 of the 5 criticisms in this article are irrelevant. The first about Logitech incompatibility was just a temporary lack of Leopard support on the part of Logitech; this is not an OS flaw: it only needed newer software. Besides, it was very temporary and doesn't apply anymore. Then, the one about the Leopard GUI, is just nitpicking and a case of tech-culture shock. Finally, the one about Apple being "smug" is hardly an issue with the OS; some people find the icon funny, others think its just stupid, but its not so much a criticisms as it is a comment. Think about it. Althepal (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Criticism stemming from culture-shock is a tricky thing to decide if it's worth mentioning as criticism.  On one hand, yes, it's actually valid, because it is still inherently a value judgement.  On the other hand, if the repetition of that criticism wears off over time, then it is probably not deserving of a permanent spot in the section.  I tend to think that a "Reception and sales" type of section, like we have with Windows Vista, would be a better place to discuss comparatively temporal criticism like the visual changes in the UI, or the blue-screen stuff that happened.  In terms of completeness, it is a part of the history of the subject, just as other temporal details are, like the fact that the operating system was delayed a couple of times.   -/- Warren 22:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Though I think the general content of a Reception and sales section here would differ vastly from the one in Windows Vista, because, well, people seem to generally like it (like the changewave study which shows about 81 percent of people who really like it) (though it did spot in PC World's tech disappointment list, too, hehe.). Althepal (talk) 23:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: In Tiger the builds were different between Intel and PPC. If this is no longer the case, it should be mentioned in the article. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Builds 

message: 3 of the 5 criticisms are out of date so wouldn't it be better to change them from Criticism to Reception?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.170.209 (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when did criticisms have a best before date? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant Criticisms 

message: I think the image that showing stacks should also include List View. As List View is an addition to Mac OS X Leopard 10.5.2, we should let people know that there is list view as well. Vincent Pun talk 10:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stacks List View 

message: Although Apple stated that Mac OS X would not run on Intel-based personal computers aside from its own, a hacked version of the OS compatible with conventional x86 hardware has been developed by the OSx86 community and is available through file-sharing networks such as BitTorrent. (from the Mac OS X article) VTNC (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage on unsupported hardware 

message: Well, just today, I discovered that right-clicking on a word not only brings up the dictionary, but Wikipedia.  I wonder what version?  The most recent one?  i can't figure out if this is cool, annoying, or just plain scary.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Using Wikipedia as a source depends on the preferences set in the Dictionary application. Pretty sure it's pulling the article over the web when you look for it; Dictionary is MUCH faster with Wikipedia turned off. Not sure if this would be too self-referential for the article, though. --Steven Fisher (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

text: The version of Wikipedia grabbed is the current version. Post another comment on this page, then search for it in Dictionary.app. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia and Leopard 

message: could someone take a real screen shot? (i.e. not using a camera)
the current screenshot is blurry.
70.189.30.78 (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The current screenshot wasn't taken with a camera. It was just rescaled, because fair use images have to be smaller scale. See Wikipedia:Non-free content AlistairMcMillan (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Seriously, if you're looking for screenshots, look around online. This is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, not Wikipedia, the free source for images of copyrighted software that we're not legally allowed to host. If you have a problem with that, write your local lawmakers and complain. Sheesh. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  new screenshot 

message: The version history section mentions that version 10.5.2 is "also available on third-released retail DVD". Is that true? I just bought Mac OS X directly from Apple last week on Friday (Aug. 1st 2008), and I got version 10.5.1. I know that it is possible that they got a storage warehouse full of 10.5.1 DVDs that they need to get rid off, but am just curious. I'll try to find an article somewhere about this. --Scuac (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed that statement. The official retail DVD has indeed currently 10.5.1 on it. By googling a little, I have found that there exists an unofficial retail DVD with 10.5.2 (that DVD is also designed to allow installation of OS X on a non-Mac machine). —C.P. (talk) 08:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  10.5.2 also available on third-released retail DVD ? 

message: I'd like more justification for why my edit  was reverted. I really don't see in what this incompatibility issue could be called a criticism of Mac OS X (at least, the references given do not present the issue as a criticism—I mean, as a criticism of Mac OS X v10.5, of course, not of Logitech or Unsanity!) Or perhaps do I not have the same notion of " "criticism" as the author? Moreover, it is really an unimportant historical detail (again, I should precise: unimportant for an encyclopedy, not necessarly for those who went across the issue), unless Mac OS X has so rarely problems that this one should have a special mention in a paragraph named "Unusual Incompatibility Problem".—83.189.139.55 (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  AlistairMcMillan's justification for restoring the item included "And the paragraph makes clear it was mostly due to a out-of-date haxie", but instead that makes it clear that it doesn't belong since it's not a criticism of Leopard, and the fact that the problem had already been fixed in APE (not Mac OS X itself) indicates that it was purely a 3rd party issue.  If the item really needs to stay it belongs in some sort of new distinct "Compatibility Issues" section, but I don't think that's necessary. Robort (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had about a year with Leopard and it's not good in terms of fault tolerance. I've had hangs, crashes and all kinds of problems. I'm pretty sure that this isn't Apple's fault alone but why does the system respond by failing just because of a driver problem? The thing I can't seem to understand is why Leopard response is utilizing 100% of the CPU (kernel_task) and severely hampering other UI functionality. The system doesn't fail enough to crash completely but it's unable to recover properly and renders itself pretty useless. This is very much a problem with Leopard. I've also had many USB issues that resulted in the other subsystems failing as well (like the blue tooth which connects my Mighty Mouse). Clearly it's not the right way to go about problems at system level, on top of this the system refuses to restart, it will just wait indefinitely. Fault tolerance is not Leopard's strongest selling point. Leidegren (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd like to add while third-party applications and/or drivers can cause major havoc and in it self can very much damaged the OS. Mac OS X falls short in being fault tolerant when handling problems at the system level. While problem with third-party stuff can be considered not to relate to Leopard, consider the impact of their failure on the system overall. I'm think Windows really has the upper hand here and that Apple with Leopard has some serious issues to deal with. The plans for Snow Leopard sounds about right for the moment but Mac being free of bugs and compatibility issues is just an out right lie. And it's deserves a lashing there of, despite it might work well for many others. Leidegren (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please read WP:RS. Your personal experiences aren't suitable content for Wikipedia. If you can find reliable sources that make the same claim, then this might be worth discussing. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Criticism"? 

message: So I understand the reason why 10.3-10.6 were moved to their codenames, but it seems strange that 10.0-10.2 still go by version names since it's kind of like a shades of gray scenario of more-like-codename or more-like-version. Unless, of course, you expect to see a discussion of Mac on some forum and people are going, "I upgraded to 10.0 when it first came out, but it kind of sucked until 10.1. 10.2 was a good upgrade for me, but I really liked the upgrade to Panther. etc." Know what I'm saying? Lack of consistency is kinda weird, and IMO requires a very strong distinction in naming of versions, of which there is none. -Althepal (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The rationale is that 10.0 and 10.1 were neither marketed nor popularly known by their great cat code names. Mac OS X 10.2 is a bit more of a grey area as is mentioned above, but common use of the great cat names didn't arrive until 10.3 Panther. The Mac OS X article provides a good overview of the naming history. I agree that consistency is a good thing, but there's no benefit in consistency for consistency's sake. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 10:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just consistency for consistency's sake. By having articles with different naming methods, it's basically saying that at some point Apple changed how they officially name their products, and without actual evidence (outside of box art) we really should not be making that statement here on Wikipedia. I see so many places on the internet where Snow Leopard is called 10.6 and so many places where 10.1 is called Puma, I don't see why we can't make them all "Mac OS X Cheetah" or "Mac OS X v10.0 Cheetah." Althepal (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistency

message: ok, for the criticisms bit i think using a blogger as a source for saying things about "the reflective icon bar" is ridiculous. for nearly everything in the world can be criticised like that. i can say i dont like the colour of the ford logo, and way it looks old fashioned. i can say i dont like how the windows logo has four colours in and looks child like, and post it on my blog. doesnt mean it can be put into an online encyclopedia? i removed this criticism and it was reverted. its purely cosmetic, i think actual criticisms with merit (not just OPINIONS), should be included. i personally love the new style and design of leopard, why cant i put that on the wikipedia page? because thats my opinion. so why should someone else, of no greater or less merit than me put their opinion on? any thoughts would be welcomed cheers guys this is my 1st discussion lol :)
:Citations must be reliable.  WP:RS is the policy in question.  Almost all blogs fail WP:RS.  --Yamla (talk) 00:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Keyword here is "almost"; the blog of a notable commentator or expert, whom we are using as a source for an opinion or critical commentary, is generally valid.  WP:SPS addresses this.  The key is to make sure that the person we're quoting has had their prior work published in reliable publications.  In the case of Rory Prior, who made the comments about Leopard's UI, he's a software developer and has been quoted and interviewed by other publications.  Whether someone who is in the business of developing user interfaces for Mac OS X, is a qualified "expert" when it comes to commenting on Leopard's user interface, is perhaps a discussion worth having.  All I'm saying is that the fact that it's a blog isn't the important detail; who the person writing the blog is, and in what context, are the vital details.  -/- Warren 16:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Putting blog references in the middle of a factual section, especially without parentheses, looks out-of-place and unprofessional.  I stopped short when I saw the first blog mentioned, not only because it was a personal blog, but because I'd never even heard the name of the person who wrote it.  Geeks abroad may be familiar with these random strings of letters, but the rest of the world couldn't care less.  These need to go in a separate "Criticisms" section so they don't disrupt the flow of the article's factual content.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatfield977 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  using blogs as references