Talk:MacOS/Archive 3

message: Regarding the text:
:A further complication is that, many critics also question the frequency of new versions in comparisons to Microsoft Windows. While this may seem like an advantage, some critics suggest some Mac OS X updates are more like Windows service packs, which are free [....]
I believe this was a Rob Enderle complaint, and shouldn't be hard to find a source. There HAS been grumbling about what IS and ISN'T an upgrade worth paying for. 10.1 was the only "freebie," but I think that was mainly because 10.0 AND 10.1 were released in 2001. 10.2 was August 2002, 10.3 was late 2003, and 10.4 was April 2005 - much more frequent, in some respects, to Windows, BUT there have been Media Center editions 2003/2004/2005 - anyone know what you have to pay if you want to update THAT edition of XP? 
The way Apple has changed things since OS X is that "point" releases (10.2, 10.3, 10.4, and later 10.5) are NEW versions, that have to be paid for (like 8 was for System 7 users, OS 9 was for OS 8 users, etc.) and the "point.point" (10.4.1, 10.4.2, 10.4.3) releases are the "service packs" - compare this to 7.5, 7.5.3, 7.5.5, 7.6, 7.6.1....
--JohnDBuell | Talk 03:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey there! I would have to say that Mac OS X releases are very different from service backs being that many, many things are changed in relation to the core operating system and many new major features. Service packs are more 'housecleaning' so to speak i.e they are fixing bugs, and upgrading security. Mac OS X releases change fundamentals things such as adding metadata, and adding the Quartz Compositor. And as well the frequency of updates is getting slower as more-or-less Apple was playing catchup. The 10.x can be seen as merely a marketing scheme, as Apple does not want to lose the Mac OS X designation =) Thanks, <FONT COLOR="#FF5500">TDS</FONT>  (talk • contribs)  16:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I said all of this, just using more words. I personally didn't think there was that much of a change from 10.2 to 10.3 (except for the brushed metal look everywhere), but the changes from 10.1 to 10.2 and 10.3 to 10.4 were major and obvious. The point  was to describe where the ideas in the removed text came from, and the criticism wasn't mine, it was a "technology analyst" (or whatever Enderle's calling himself these days). --JohnDBuell | Talk 06:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I personally treat Mac OS X releases as not 10.4.4. I don;t think that there will be an OS 11. I think the os is more like Mac OS X Version 4.4. The dot update confuses windows users into thinking that they are buying service packs, since it seems like one-tenth of a new os.
Ccool2ax 14:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed revision 

message: Dedicating over 200 words to a debate over the fairness of the upgrade price in an encyclopedia article seems crazy. I understand that some people think Apple charges too much for OS upgrades (I agree!), but does anyone really think this belongs in an encyclopedia entry? Can anyone provide a compelling argument to leave that paragraph in there?
: I agree, this does not really belong in an encyclopedia. Ramallite (talk) 04:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree. It is a valid criticism that is held by many people, and I see no reason as to why it is not encylopedic. While I personally do not agree with the criticism, I see no reason to remove it. Earlier on the talk page there is a cited expert who states that exact claim. <FONT COLOR="#FF5500">TDS</FONT>  (talk • contribs)  04:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree that it's valid criticism, but I also agree that it should be removed. I musses up what's otherwise a decent, concise article about an operating system with a petty point. If some people feel really strongly it should stay, then it should at least be shortened to one or two sentences. (Some people say it's too expensive. Others disagree.) 66.117.145.108 05:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Placing criticisms of an operating system in an article about said operating system is not 'petty.' It is showing all sides of the manner, which an enclyopedia ought to do. <FONT COLOR="#FF5500">TDS</FONT>  (talk • contribs)  05:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is fair to keep it in, but it is comparing it to Microsoft Windows, yet it doesn't mention that the initial retail price of XP Pro is a lot more expensive than Mac OS X is at retail price. Neither does it mention the cost of Microsoft Windows upgrades. — Wackymacs 08:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  =D    In all fairness I agree with Wackymacs, we need more on how much Windows is, and how much Vista releases will be. <FONT COLOR="#FF5500">TDS</FONT>  (talk • contribs)  15:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's likely you won't see anything on Vista pricing until MUCH closer to its release (whenever THAT turns out to be). But it's pretty commonly known that you can get XP Home (for computers without Windows), XP Home (upgrading prior version of Windows to current), XP Pro (for computers without Windows, higher than Home), XP Pro (upgrading versions, including Home, to Pro). The other editions (Tablet PC, Media Center edition, etc) are OEM only and not available to end users. --JohnDBuell | Talk 18:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

text: These complaints about the price (and the opposite arguments about Windows pricing) are original research: just the opinions of a Wikipedia contributor. Where is the source for the opinion that the OS is too expensive? See No_original_research#What_is_excluded_from_articles.3F An individual's opinions do not belong in the article. (There are lots of things I dislike about OS X, but I understand that this article is not the place for such discussions.) 68.125.62.126 00:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it isn't. These are opinions that have been put forward by "technology analysts," NOT original opinions of Wikipedians (and similar grumbling has taken place on many Apple-related newsgroups, including some that Apple hosts). --JohnDBuell 01:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a citation? 70.162.56.52 16:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: From the Apple’s EULA at : “Updates: If an Apple Software update completely replaces (full install) a previously licensed version of the Apple Software, you may not use both versions of the Apple Software at the same time nor may you transfer them separately.” That suggests that it is indeed a upgrade license and not a new license. The pricing argument, as written, is a bit sophomoric—and I can't rewrite it because I think it doesn't belong here. The pricing argument appears to be a holdover from a section chock-full of subjective criticisms of Mac OS X; the other arguments were dealt with accordingly. I propose renaming the "Pricing debate" section to "Pricing" and deleting the second paragraph. This discussion appears to have previously ended with only some superficial edits; barring a citation or substantial improvement to the copy, I'll be back with the cleaver. 70.162.56.52 16:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Leave the facts in, but take the opinions out. The entire second paragraph relating OS X pricing to Microsoft's pricing is unnecessary, and quite frankly, doesn't make much sense. Cleave away! EricNau 00:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pricing structure 

message: OK, I've just read most of this debate (I skimmed the middle because it's late, and my eyes hurt) and I think it boils down to a very simple question with a very complex answer: "What is an operating system?" To quote from Talk:Operating system:
: I think it would be worthwhile to discuss more the differences between "operating systems" as computer scientists see them (kernels -- scheduling, virtual memory, real-time, and so on) and "operating systems" as marketers see them (libraries, GUIs, bundled applications). There is a real terminology gap there. --FOo 04:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The exact delineation between the operating system and application software is not precise, however, and is occasionally subject to controversy.
That paragraph goes on to mention the debate over whether IE is part of an OS, which makes debates over something as fundamental as Aqua pale into comparison. 
Of course, if you accept that the availability of Aqua makes for a distinct OS, then you'd have to identify "Linux+GNU tools+X11+GNOME" as a distinct OS to "Linux+GNU tools+X11+KDE", and probably that any "distribution" is a distinct OS. But, as the term is generally used, that's probably more-or-less true, in that there's no very fixed line between a distinction that amounts to a new "distribution", and one that makes for a new OS. Measures might include compatibility, bespoke components (e.g. Debian is "more unique" than Ubuntu), adoption, and maybe marketting - on all of which Mac OS X would score very highly as a distinct OS, not a derivative or distribution of something else.
Now, let's turn this debate into something productive and discuss this issue in an article somewhere, perhaps by extending the intro of operating system... - IMSoP 01:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Hear hear! --JohnDBuell 03:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Boils down to

message: They are messing up the Gnu-Darwin article with no criterion at all, expecially that moron of Alistair that put a screenshot from the GNU-Darwin site in the Darwin article.100%IDIOT. If they don't stop then I'll ask for arbitration quite soon.
Luxiake
: Please see our policy on Wikipedia:No personal attacks.  Thank you. AlistairMcMillan 23:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but the way I see it, and reading up on what's currently posted at gnu-darwin.org, they're both correct, and making accurate changes to that article. And I hate to say this, but that sort of immature namecalling will likely NOT get very far in an article dispute. --JohnDBuell 23:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh and for the record it was Yoasif who added the screenshot.   And you can find the Arbitration page at: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration.  Thanks again. AlistairMcMillan 23:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Luxaike, don't you think you are taking this a little bit too far? You need to chill, if you don't mind me saying. Your arguments over both OS X being a distribution of Darwin and Gnu-Darwin have both been incorrect. — Wackymacs 07:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Please look at the history of this guy's edits before taking him seriously.  He really doesn't know what he is talking about. AlistairMcMillan 09:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The users AlistairMcMillan and Yoasif are Acting like punks

message: Now, isn't Mac OS X POSIX-compliant? Does that justify its Unix-naming?
20:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the article Mac OS X "is not compliant with the Single UNIX Specification" (it has compatibility features, but then so does Windows NT) and Apple "has not had the OS officially certified" with the holders of the "Unix" trademark. So, no and no. Whether or not they are right in considering the trademark to have already become "genericized" (and thus unenforcable) is for the courts to decide, if The Open Group bother to defend it. - IMSoP 23:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: I have commented out this unsourced section:
:The Open Group has criticized Apple for use of the term "Unix" in advertisements for Mac OS X as Apple has not had the OS officially certified, and their use of the term could constitute a violation of trademark. 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 110,000 USD upper limit on the cost of certification for one company. Though Mac OS X is contains code from BSD (which was once based on Unix, though modern BSDs avoid the term for legal reasons), it is not compliant with the Single UNIX Specification. The reason for Apple not seeking "official" Unix branding may simply be that compliance is not a near- or medium-term goal for Apple instead of the potentially misleading cost claim.
According to CNET, the Open Group sued apple over the use of the term UNIX. They probably reached an agreement since Apple is now listed here under "Platform Vendors Supporting the Single UNIX Specification", but I couldn't find a source for this. Mushroom 05:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'd say we've got sources for the root of the dispute in the main article now :) --JohnDBuell 22:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Open Group vs. Apple

message: I deleted this statement from the intro paragraph: "Unlike previous versions of the Macintosh operating system, such as Mac OS 9, which were based upon the C Programming Language, Mac OS X is based on a type of UNIX kernel (see History below)." because the intro should be as concise and straightforward as possible - it should only say what Mac OS X is, and what it's for. It's an operating system which is distributed by Apple computer for use on (some of) its computers.
The statement was added by User:71.125.172.173. I originally removed it because it is:
* confusing - readers who are unfamiliar with C and/or Unix won't understand or care until they read further. What's more, it confuses the language used to program the system with the architectural base of the system.
* technically inaccurate - the original Mac OS was written in Pascal, except for some of the Toolbox and OS functions in ROM which were assembly language. Apple didn't start using C until much later. Also, XNU is not simply a "Unix kernel", as the Mach/BSD discussions illustrate.
* unnecessary - as I wrote above, the intro doesn't need to state this information, and it is contained further down in the article (and in supporting articles such as Darwin (OS) and Architecture of Mac OS X.
I won't keep reverting the statement indefinitely, but I wanted to get a feel for whether you guys (the regular editors on this article) agree with the removal, or would you rather see a corrected version of the same information added to the intro. Thanks! MFNickster 23:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. huwr 23:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: ...and there's more to Darwin than just the xnu kernel, in any case (other libraries, commands, daemons, etc.). Guy Harris 00:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Mushroom 00:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Based on C" trimmed from intro

message: The intro claims that Mac OS X is included in "all shipping Apple Macintosh computers", however if I recall correctly Yellow Dog Linux is included in some machines by Terra Soft Solutions. Which has a special agreement with Apple Computer. —Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 09:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Terra Soft is an Apple reseller. Whether or not they get the systems from Apple with an OS already on them is anybody's guess, but they add Linux as a VAR service [ side note: is putting Linux on a Mac adding or subtracting value? <grin>]. In any case, I take the statement to mean that the OS is included with all models of Mac shipped by Apple, which I believe is accurate. - MFNickster 14:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "all shipping Apple Macintosh computers" 

message: This article needs more references for individual facts in the article.
:Which points do you think are the highest priority? MFNickster 17:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "I don't see why there is such a high need for more references."  Because Wikipedia:Verifiability is not negotiable; it is a rock-solid policy.  This entire article has only two references, both inline URLs.  Please understand I am in no way suggesting that anything written here is untrue or POV. It doesn't matter; everything needs references.  I've replaced the tag; don't remove it until all controversial, unusual, or lesser-known facts presented here are sourced.  Once the tag goes away, any facts remaining unsourced(even uncontroversial ones), or any unsourced facts added, need to have a  tag added to them, until the cleanup is complete.  I know this isn't fun, but it has to be done.  I've gotten started by sourcing four facts.  The good news is that a well-known technical subject like this not hard to source.  It's just tedious.  But if everyone interested in this page just takes a few minutes to Google a fact, find a good source, and source it, we can be done in a few days—and then you can nominate the article for peer review, get it promoted to good article or featured article status, and so on. --TreyHarris 07:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Some parts of this article, in particular the "Pricing Criticism" section, and parts of the "History" and "Description" sections, seem rather POV in a pro-Apple sense.  Has anyone else noticed this? 68.238.93.104 19:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Some of the recent additions by User:207.135.154.96 are short on facts and big on gushing. Most of them should probably be reverted. MFNickster 19:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: It's not a microkernel in the way the microkernel article describes microkernels:
:A microkernel is a type of kernel which consists of a simple abstraction over the hardware, with a set of primitives or system calls to implement minimal OS services such as address space management, thread management, and inter-process communication. All other services, those normally provided by the kernel such as networking, are implemented in user-space programs referred to as servers.
In OS X, networking and file systems, and device drivers for networking and storage devices, as well as some other device drivers, run in kernel space, just as they do in, for example, Windows NT.  Both NT and OS X are described on their pages as having a Hybrid kernel, which is a more accurate description of their architecture.
In addition, there's nothing about being a hybrid kernel that makes moving to another platform easier; the way the low-level platform support in xnu works is similar to the way it works in portable monolithic kernels such as the SunOS 4.x and 5.x kernels, the various BSD kernels, and the Linux kernel.  For example, the VM system in SunOS 4.x and 5.x has a "HAT layer" (Hardware Address Translation layer), which offers low-level MMU services to the platform-independent VM system and code using the VM system; the differences between the MMUs are largely encapsulated in the HAT layer (with some exceptions in, for example, startup code).  Similarly, the Mach VM system has a "pmap layer" offering low-level MMU services - but the Mach VM system was adopted by BSD without BSD becoming a microkernel.  Various I/O bus services, etc. are also offered by low-level code, with different implementations on different platforms. Guy Harris 23:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay the point I'm trying to make is that it was easier for Apple to port Rhapsody/Mac OS X to another platform than it would have been to port the old Mac OS.  If you have a better way of wording that, then please feel free to make any changes as you see fit.  AlistairMcMillan 00:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears you've already done that.  Thanks! :-) Guy Harris 00:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: xnu isn't a microkernel

message: 24.6.64.34 changed 'several people have been using a development version' to 'some people have been illegally using a development version'. Which weasel word is best, 'some' or 'several'? Or should we do something else there, such as cite statistics?
Also, what is the legality of Mac OS X in various countries? Should we comment on this? 4.242.147.106 00:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Use of OS X is legal worldwide, to the best of my knowledge. It's usually encryption algorithms that get restricted for sale outside of certain nations. But, IANAL. --JohnDBuell 04:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using OS X on non-Apple hardware 

message: What language versions exists of MacOSX? You can have Windows XP versions in 40+ native tongues like tamil, suaheli or hungarian. I heard Mac OS only exists in american, german and french. This sounds like cultural imperialism, while Windows supports preservation of ethnic diversity.
I give credit to Bill Gates for promoting understanding between different cultures, e.g. the arabic and hebrew software versions of MSDN are always given on the same single CD, forcing the enemies to handle and accept the other side's "unholy" material. this kind of activism is missing from Apple. 195.70.32.136 08:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Language editions for OS X are, as per the OS X technical specifications, "English, Japanese, French, German, Spanish, Italian, Dutch, Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Finnish, Traditional Chinese, Simplified Chinese, Korean, Brazilian Portuguese". Guy Harris 08:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 195.70.32.136, Mac OS X, in addition to being available for those languages, lets you switch between languages with the same installation. --BDWill Talk Contribs 16:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Those are the languages Apple lists there, but I see a many more in my System Preferences. If you have a (Tiger) Mac, go into System Preferences, click on International, and in the Language tab, click the Edit List button. In there I see all kinds of languages... Schweizer Deutsch, Tagalog, Malti, Polski, and many things in fonts I can't begin to read. What are all these if not supported languages?  Epastore 02:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try adding, say, "Català" to the list with "Edit List", close the "Edit List" box, and drag "Català" to the top of the list.  Then log out and log in again; how many of the apps that come with OS X show menus, etc. in Catalan?  If the answer is "none", then Catalan is not a supported language, at least for those applications.  Guy Harris 02:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Finder is an application too, and it's up to the application developer to localize the app. The Finder is localized to 15 languages, but there is font and input support for more. I must say, though - I think criticizing Apple for not supporting enough languages is fine, but criticizing them for not promoting a particular international political or ethnic agenda is (forgive me) silly. MFNickster 03:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. ~ Ross (ElCharismo) 19:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The flames of the holy spirit did not descend on Mac OS X. 

message: I have removed the screenshot image from the article, for the following reasons:
* The old image showed a default install of OS X 10.4 Tiger.  The new image now displays several pieces of software which are not part of OS X, and so the image is less relevant to the article.
* These other pieces of software (Starcraft, Firefox, Adium, X-Chat, etc.) are not the subject of this article, so the screenshot does not  qualify as fair use.  While some of them, being GPL software, are still allowable images, display of proprietary software like Starcraft isn't allowable in this article.
Can someone create a new image like the old one, showing a default install? --TreyHarris 17:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed.  Just reverted :Image:TigerDesk.png to an earlier version.  AlistairMcMillan 18:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New image inappropriate for this article 

message: The folks at Windows Vista and Windows Aero are trying to delete or bury mention of the similarities between Windows Vista/Aero and Aqua.  Any help would be appreciated. -- Gnetwerker 20:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows Vista / Aero 

message: Searching for 'security' and 'secur*' returns 0 results.  There should be at least a little info regarding MacOS security.
having little experience with MacOS I would really appreciate a security section. ---Fractal3 20:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Second that - I came to the article to find out about why OS X is supposed to be better than Windows and that kind of thing.  I appreciate it might be difficult to police with all the fanboys on either side, but it's certainly needed. Tyrhinis 19:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a security discussion is important for any OS. I am thinking about mentioning the numerous old vulnerabilities found in OS X --> http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/security/print.htm?TYPE=story&AT=39234678-2000061744t-10000005c and http://www.sans.org/top20/2005/spring_2006_update.php . To balance, Apples recent publication of http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Security/Conceptual/SecureCodingGuide/SecureCodingGuide.pdf, containing a section titled "No Platform is Immune", eventually accompanied by this review: http://blogs.23.nu/ilja/stories/11976/ . I'd be grateful for comments and suggestions how to best integrate the security discussion in a friendly, consensual way into the article. --Ministry of Truth 12:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing mentioned regarding security