
#redirect Mac OS X
Mac OS X is the latest version of the Mac OS, the operating system software for Apple Macintosh computers. Mac OS X was first commercially released in 2001. It consists of two main parts: Apple Darwin, an open source Unix-like environment which is based on the Berkeley Software Distribution source tree and the Mach kernel, adapted and further developed by Apple Computer with involvement from independent developers; and a proprietary Graphical user interface named Aqua (Mac OS X), developed by Apple. Mac OS X Server was also released in 2001. Architecturally identical to the workstation (client) version, it is differentiated by the inclusion of workgroup management and administration software tools, which provide simplified access to key network services, such as a mail transfer agent, a samba software, a LDAP, and a Domain Name System. It also has a different licensing model. ==Naming== The character ''X'' is a Roman numeral and is officially pronounced "ten", continuing the numbering of previous Macintosh operating systems such as Mac OS 8 and Mac OS 9. Some people read it as the letter ''X'' and pronounce it "ex". One reason for this interpretation is the tradition of giving Unix-like operating system names ending with the letter ''x'' (e.g. AIX operating system, IRIX, Linux, Minix, Ultrix, Xenix). Another reason is Apple's tendency to refer to specific versions in print as (for example) "Mac OS X version 10.4". Mac OS X versions are named after large felines. Prior to its release, version 10.0 was code named Mac OS X v10.0 internally at Apple, and version 10.1 was codenamed Mac OS X v10.1. Version 10.2 was named Mac OS X v10.2 in Apple's product marketing, and 10.3 was similarly named Mac OS X v10.3. Version 10.4 has been named Mac OS X v10.4. Mac OS X v10.5 has been announced as the name for the next release of the operating system. Apple has also registered the trademarks Lynx (cat) and Cougar for future use. Apple faced a lawsuit from a computer retailer named TigerDirect regarding its use of the name "Tiger". However, on 16 May 2005 the Florida Federal Court ruled that Apple's use of the name "Tiger" does not infringe upon TigerDirect's trademark. Apple's web site and literature refer to the specific Mac OS X releases in any of four different ways: *''Mac OS X v10.4'', giving the version number of the release. *''Mac OS X Tiger'', giving the name of the release. *''Mac OS X v10.4 "Tiger"'', giving the version number and name. Apple's usage sometimes omits the quotation marks. *"Tiger", simply the name of the release ==History== ''Main article: Mac OS X history'' Despite its branding as simply "version 10" of the Mac OS, it has a history largely independent of the earlier Mac OS releases. It is based on the Mach kernel and the Berkeley Software Distribution implementation of Unix, which were incorporated into NeXTSTEP, the object-oriented operating system developed by Steve Jobs's NeXT company after he was forced from Apple in 1985. Meanwhile, Apple attempted to create a "next generation" operating system of its own (see Taligent and Copland), but with little success. Eventually, NeXT's OS—by then called OpenStep—was selected to form the basis for Apple's next OS, and the company purchased NeXT outright. Jobs was rehired, and later returned to the leadership of the company, shepherding the transformation of the programmer-friendly OPENSTEP into a system that would be welcomed by Apple's primary market of home users and creative professionals, as a project known as Rhapsody (OS). After some missteps which threatened the loyalty of independent developers to Mac OS, and changes of strategy to ease the transition from Mac OS 9 to the new system, Rhapsody evolved into Mac OS X. ==Description== [[Image:Mac OS X Box.jpeg|thumbnail|right|160px|The box for Mac OS X v10.4 "Tiger"]] Mac OS X is a radical departure from previous Macintosh operating systems, as its underlying code base is completely different from previous versions. Although the most significant architectural changes were under the surface, the Aqua GUI was the most striking and visible new feature. The use of soft edges, translucent colors and pinstripes (similar to the hardware of the first iMacs) brought more color and texture to the windows and controls on the Desktop than OS 9's "Platinum" appearance offered, raising a great deal of controversy among users. Many older Macintosh users decried the interface as "toy-like" and lacking in professional polish, while others hailed the new GUI as a revolutionary Apple innovation. The look was instantly recognizable and even before the first version of Mac OS X was released, third-party developers started producing skin (computing) for skinnable applications like Winamp that looked like the Aqua interface. Apple has threatened legal action against people who make or distribute software which provides an interface which they claim is derived from their copyrighted design. This combination of GUI and kernel has recently become the most popular-selling Unix-like environment to date by sheer number of systems shipped. ==Compatibility== Mac OS X retains compatibility with older Mac OS applications by providing an emulation environment called Classic (Mac OS X), which allows users to run Mac OS 9 as a process within Mac OS X, so that most older applications run as they would under the older operating system. In addition, the Carbon (API) APIs for Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X were created to permit code to be written to run natively on both systems. The OpenStep APIs are still available, but Apple now calls the technology Cocoa (API). (This heritage is visible in the Cocoa APIs, in which the class names mostly begin with "NS" for NeXTSTEP.) A fourth option for developers is to write applications in the Java platform, which Mac OS X supports as a "first class citizen" - in practice this means that Java applications fit as neatly into the operating system as possible while still being "cross-platform", and that GUIs, while being written in Swing (Java), look almost exactly like native Cocoa interfaces. Mac OS X can run many BSD or Linux software packages, as long as they have been compiled for the platform. Compiled binaries are normally distributed as Mac OS X packages, but some may require command-line configuration or compilation. Projects such as Fink and DarwinPorts provide precompiled or preformatted packages for many standard packages. Since version 10.3, Mac OS X has included Apple X11, the company's version of the X11 graphical interface for Unix applications, as an optional component during installation. Apple's implementation is based on XFree86 4.3 and X11R6.6, with a window manager which mimics the Mac OS X look, closer integration with Mac OS X, and extensions to use the native Quartz (graphics layer) rendering system and to accelerate OpenGL. Earlier versions of Mac OS X can run X11 applications using XDarwin. For the early releases of Mac OS X, the standard hardware platform supported was the line of Macintosh computers (laptop, desktop, or server) based on PowerPC G3, G4, and G5 processors. Later versions of Mac OS X discontinued support for some older hardware; for example, Panther does not support "beige" G3s, and Tiger does not support systems that pre-date Apple's introduction of FireWire ports. However, free tools such as XPostFacto have enabled installation of Mac OS X on certain older systems not officially supported by Apple, including some pre-G3 systems. The operating system offers the same functionality on all supported hardware, with the exception of fundamental hardware limitations (e.g. CD-ROM drives cannot write to CDs) and performance enhancements possible only with more advanced equipment (e.g. graphics acceleration). On June 6, 2005, Steve Jobs announced in his keynote address at the WWDC that Apple will be switching from PowerPC to Intel processors over the following two years[http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/05/06/06/1752234.shtml?tid=118&tid=179&tid=3], and that Mac OS X will support both platforms during this transition. Support for the PowerPC platform will remain in version 10.5, though it is unclear how long this dual-architecture support will be continued. (Mac OS support for the original Motorola 68k architecture continued for about four years after the introduction of PowerPC systems.) A new version of Xcode supports building "universal binaries" that will run on either architecture. PowerPC binaries will be supported on Intel-based Macs using an emulator called Rosetta (software). Jobs also confirmed rumors that Apple has had versions of Mac OS X running on Intel processors for most of its developmental life. Such crossplatform capability already existed in OS X's lineage -- the predecessor of OS X, OPENSTEP, had been ported to many architectures, including Intel's x86, and a port to x86 of the core operating system of OS X, Apple Darwin, has been available as a free download since OS X was first released. == Notable features == * Uses a subset of the Portable Document Format (PDF) as the basis of its Quartz (graphics layer) imaging model. * Full color, continuously scalable icons (up to 256x256 pixels). * Drop shadow around window and isolated text elements to provide a sense of depth. * Global spell checking and other powerful tools thanks to NeXT-style application services. * Anti-aliasing of widgets, text, graphics and window elements. * New interface elements including sheets (document modal dialog box attached to specific windows) and drawers. * Interweaving windows of different applications (not necessarily adjacent in the visible stacking order). * ColorSync color matching built into the core drawing engine (for print and multimedia professionals). * OpenGL (introduced in version 10.2) composites windows onto the screen to allow hardware accelerated drawing. This technology is called Quartz Compositor. * Exposé (Mac OS X) (introduced in version 10.3) can quickly tile open windows or reveal the desktop. * Pervasive use of Unicode throughout the operating system. * Straightforward architecture for localization of applications and other code, fully separating language dependencies from the core code of a program. * FileVault (introduced in version 10.3) encrypts the user's Home folder with Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) 128-bit keys. * Apple Dashboard (introduced in version 10.4) supports small applications ("Widget_%28computing%29#Dashboard_widgets") that can be called up and dismissed in one keystroke. * Spotlight_%28software%29 search technology (introduced in version 10.4) allows rapid real-time searches of data files, mail messages, photos, and other information, based on item properties and/or content. ==Criticisms== In comparison to Microsoft Windows, some critics point to the lack of ''upgrade pricing'' on Mac OS X; users of previous versions have to pay full price for a new version. This is in part a semantic argument, depending on whether a retail Mac OS X package is considered an "upgrade" or not. On one hand, it can only be used on a Mac, all of which were sold with some version of the Mac OS, so it is arguably an upgrade. On the other hand, no price distinction is made between upgrading version 9.0 or version 10.3 to version 10.4, suggesting that consumers are buying a full license in either case, or at least receiving no credit for intervening upgrades. Furthermore, customers who purchase a Macintosh between the time a new version of Mac OS X is announced and the time it starts shipping preinstalled on new machines have typically been given upgrades at a much smaller cost (US$9.95-19.95). Meanwhile, the ''upgrade price'' for Windows varies substantially depending on volume purchase agreements, Home vs. Pro editions, etc. making direct comparisons difficult. In some cases, the upgrade price for Windows exceeds that of Mac OS X, suggesting that this criticism is moot. 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 US$110,000 upper limit on the cost of certification for one company. ==Versions== Internally, Apple uses a "build number" to identify each development version of Mac OS X. There may be many development versions each week. Under Apple's guidelines, the first development version of a product starts with build 1A1. Minor revisions to that are 1A2, 1A3, 1A4, and so on; the first major development revision becomes 1B1 (and minor revisions to that would be 1B2, 1B3, etc.), the next major revision would be 1C1, and so forth. The next major revision after the last 1_ series would be 2A, followed by 2B. The transition from one letter to the next occurs with changes in the minor release number. For instance, the first build of Panther (10.3) was 7A1. The first public release was 7B85; the last, 10.3.9, was 7W98. But the next build of OS X was 10.4, 8A1. When a build is chosen as the next public release of Mac OS X, it is given a public version number. Build 4K78 was chosen to be Mac OS X version 10.0, build 5G64 became 10.1, build 6C115 became 10.2, build 7B85 became 10.3, and build 8A428 became 10.4. The current version of Mac OS X is version 10.4.1 (released on May 16, 2005). === Mac OS X v10.0 (Cheetah) === On March 24, 2001, Apple released Mac OS X v10.0 (codenamed Cheetah). It was praised for its completeness and stability at such an early point in its development (it being a total departure from previous Apple releases). Despite this, it was criticized for being slow, leading many (including Steve Jobs) to consider it merely a very good "Development_stage#Beta" release. === Mac OS X v10.1 (Puma) === Later that year on September 25, 2001, Mac OS X v10.1 (codenamed Puma) was released, increasing the performance of the system as well as providing missing features, such as DVD playback. Because of the poor reputation of 10.0, Apple released 10.1 as a free upgrade CD for 10.0 users, in addition to the US$129 boxed version for people running only Mac OS. This brought Apple much embarrassment when it was discovered that the upgrade CDs were actually full install CDs that could be used with Mac OS systems by removing a specific file; Apple subsequently rereleased the CDs in an actual stripped-down format that didn't facilitate installation on such systems. ===Mac OS X v10.2 "Jaguar"=== On August 24, 2002, Apple followed up with Mac OS X v10.2 "Jaguar" (the first release to publicly bear its cat name), which brought profound performance enhancements, a newer, sleeker look, and many powerful enhancements (over 150, according to Apple), among them: *Increased support for Microsoft Windows networks *Quartz Compositor for compositing graphics directly on the video card *An adaptive spamming mail filter, based on latent semantic indexing *A system-wide repository for contact information in the new Apple Address Book *Bonjour (protocol) networking (Apple's implementation of Zeroconf; renamed to Bonjour in 10.4) *iChat: an Apple-branded, officially-supported third party AOL Instant Messenger client *A revamped Finder (Mac OS) with searching built directly into every window *Dozens of new Apple Universal Access features *Sherlock 3: Web services (See Karelia Watson) *CUPS: The Common Unix Printing System allowed the use of GIMP-print drivers, hpijs drivers etc. for "unsupported" printers. It also allowed - with some user recompilation - printing to serial printers. Mac OS X v10.2 was never officially referred to as Jaguar in the United Kingdom due to an agreement with the automobile manufacturer Jaguar (car), although boxes and CDs still bore the Jaguar-skin logo. ===Mac OS X v10.3 "Panther"=== Mac OS X v10.3 "Panther" was released on October 24, 2003. In addition to providing much improved performance, it also incorporated the most extensive update yet to the user interface. The update included as many or more new features as Jaguar the year before. On the other hand, support for some older "beige era" G3 computers was discontinued. New features of "Panther" include: *Updated Finder, incorporating a brushed-metal interface and fast-searching *Exposé (Mac OS X): a new system to manipulate windows *Fast User Switching: allows a user to remain logged in while another user logs in *iChat AV which added Video teleconference features to iChat *Improved Portable Document Format rendering to allow for extremely fast PDF viewing *Built-in faxing support *Much greater Microsoft Windows interoperability *FileVault: on the fly encryption and decryption of a user's home folder *Increased speed across the entire system with more support for the PowerPC G5 ===Mac OS X v10.4 "Tiger"=== Mac OS X v10.4 "Tiger" was released on April 29, 2005. Apple stated that Tiger contains more than 200 new features, but as with the release of Panther, certain older machines have been dropped from the list of supported hardware; Tiger requires FireWire. Among the new features of "Tiger": *Spotlight (software): A fast content and metadata-based file search tool, which quickly finds items containing the key words you search for. *Apple Dashboard: widget (computing) for common tasks available on a desktop overlay just a click away. *iChat: A new version supports the H.264 video codec for conferencing and allows for multi-party audio and video chats. *QuickTime 7: the new version includes H.264 support and a completely re-written interface. *Apple Safari 2: this new version of the system's default web browser includes the ability to view RSS feeds directly in the browser, among other new features. *Automator (software): automates repetitive tasks without programming. *Core Image and Core Video: allows additional effects in video and image editing to be performed in real time. *64-bit memory support for the new PowerPC G5, using the LP64 system. *Updated Unix utilities, such as cp (Unix) and rsync, that can preserve HFS Plus metadata and resource forks. *An extended permissions system using access control lists. ===Mac OS X v10.5 "Leopard"=== Mac OS X v10.5 "Leopard" was announced at the Worldwide Developers Conference on June 6, 2005, due to be released at the end of 2006 or early 2007. Apple has said that it will support both PowerPC- and Intel- based Macintosh computers. ==See also== * Comparison of operating systems * Comparison of operating systems (security) * List of Macintosh software * PearPC - Windows/Linux-based emulator capable of running Mac OS X ==External links== *[http://www.apple.com/macosx/ Apple: Mac OS X] — Official page *[http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/ What is OS X? (kernelthread.com)] — A balanced, accessible overview of the Mac OS X operating system *[http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/free_issues/issue_01/osx_jungle Mac OS X: Welcome to the jungle] — A look inside the Mac OS X software ecology (Free Software Magazine, March 2005) *[http://www.xvsxp.com/] — A comprehensive look at OS X and Windows XP Apple software Mac OS X Mach Windowing systems BSD th:แมคโอเอสเท็น
''This is a selected entry on Template:March 24 selected anniversaries (may be in HTML comment)'' Older discussions from this page have been moved to Talk:Mac OS X/Archive =='v' in Mac OS X version names== The proper names of the Mac OS X operating system releases have "v" in them, like "Mac OS X v10.0". Apple uses "v10.0" on its web site and in its documentation. Calling it "Mac OS X 10.0" is incorrect. The "X" stands for "10", so "X 10.0" would be redundant. For an example of Apple's use, see [http://www.apple.com/macosx/]. Please don't rename the Mac OS X release articles to names that aren't correct. - User:Brian Kendig 03:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Interface Article name standardization == Can we standardize the article names for the various interfaces? Right now we have: * Quartz (graphics layer) * Platinum (Macintosh) * Aqua (Mac OS X) * Carbon (computing) * Cocoa (software) It's frustrating, because when I'm writing articles on OS X, I have to look up the individual article to make sure that I'm linking to it correctly. Can we rename all these something standard, like Quartz (interface) or something similar? Is there a WikiProject that handles these kind of conventions already? --User:DropDeadGorgias User_talk:DropDeadGorgias 17:32, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) : How about the following since Quartz, Aqua and Cocoa only relate to Mac OS X? Maybe even just Macintosh in brackets after all of them, since they are all to do with the Macintosh platform in one way or another. :* Quartz (Mac OS X) :* Platinum (Macintosh) :* Aqua (Mac OS X) :* Carbon (Macintosh) :* Cocoa (Mac OS X) : User:AlistairMcMillan 18:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::This is almost as inconsistent! The problem is knowing which form an article title takes when writing another article containing a link - you'd still need to know enough about the various technologies to decide which one to pick, or else open another browser and look it up while you're editing (which I find a bit irritating, but what can you do?). How about just suffixing every Mac article with (Mac). That way we always know what form it takes, it's almost certainly not going to clash with any unrelated article title, and it helps to keep the topics together. Personally I don't see a need in a general encyclopedia like this to have to make a distinction between classic Macs and OS X, etc - we are not attempting to be a developer resource or anything. User:GRAHAMUK 00:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::The standing principle is to use the most general disambiguation terms possible. If there's only one noteworthy person named Joe Smith in the world, you entitle it "Joe Smith". If there are two, and one writes science-fiction novels, and the other plays hockey for the Boise Brawlers, you disambiguate them as "Joe Smith (writer)" and "Joe Smith (athlete)". You only resort to "Joe Smith (science-fiction novelist)" if there's also a famous Joe Smith who writes westerns and one who writes sci-fi screenplays. So unless there are other instances of "Aqua" in the realm of computing which require disambiguation from the Mac OS X GUI, "Aqua (computing)" or maybe "Aqua (software)" would be most appropriate. User:Tverbeek 01:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::I agree, all of the articles should be Quartz (computing} because that is the most general thing we can do, and still keep the category clear. Only in the rare cirumstance of there being multiple meanings of the same word (like if there was a program named Quartz) should be resort to somthing different. Standarization ''is'' important, and this would be the way to do it. --User:Ctachme 02:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::: Uhm... http://www.opensymphony.com/quartz/ :) User:AlistairMcMillan 14:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::::Good point. I'm inclined to go with Alistair's suggestions, with the system names in the title. --User:DropDeadGorgias User_talk:DropDeadGorgias 20:17, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC) ::::::: That was just an example. Because of that you still wouldn't want to do Quartz (Mac) because it is still not specific. What if this Quartz thing linked to worked on a Mac? No, I still think it would be best be as general as possible. --User:Ctachme 02:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::: ''"you'd still need to know enough about the various technologies to decide which one to pick, or else open another browser and look it up while you're editing"'' Two things. First of all I think we'd all hope that editors who are writing about something would "know enough" before hitting the Edit link and second with the fluid nature of Wikipedia you pretty much have to check every link you create anyway. Just look at the pages for the various OS X versions, in the last week they moved three or four times, who knows where they'll be next week. User:AlistairMcMillan 01:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::Ctachme, what interface names do you suggest then? Keep in mind that naming conventions state that disambiguation names are supposed to be as general as possible without possible ambiguity with other topics. I personally think that Alistair's suggestions fit those criteria, but if you have a better suggestion I'm open to it. --User:DropDeadGorgias User_talk:DropDeadGorgias 13:21, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC) :::::We should do exactly what it says: if there are no other like-named computing articles you use Somthing (computing), if there are, but are no like-named software articles then you do Somthing (software), and you get more specific until you have eliminated any like named aricles... why arbitratilly set it at Somthing (Mac OS X), when it's just as possible that there be another thing in Mac OS X that applies (like if there was a software program named Quartz that runs on Mac OS X). For these few examples I would do: :::::* Quartz (technology) (if there was a more specific article for any of this, like [http://www.opensymphony.com/quartz/], then you should make the category more specific if needed) :::::* Platinum (technology) :::::* Aqua (technology) :::::* Carbon (technology) :::::* Cocoa (programming enviornment) (Cocoa (Mac OS X) shouldn't be used because CoCoA System runs on Mac OS X) :::::I would also suggest that the software articles like Apple Mail be changed to Mail (Apple software) since the name of the application is NOT "Apple Mail" it's simply Mail. --User:Ctachme 20:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) I know the comparison isn't exactly perfect, but I don't see why we have to be so vague. If there were a great number of people name Jean-Luc Picard, you wouldn't do Jean-Luc Picard (television character), you would do Jean-Luc Picard (Star Trek). Isn't the idea behind the "standing principle" you mentioned, to make sure you don't exclude anything, Our Platinum article, is directly related to the Mac OS. Our Quartz article, is directly related to Mac OS X. We are not excluding other things that it might apply to, by being exact. Aside from that, I agree and quite like the Mail (Apple software) idea. Looks a lot better than the current name. Also XCode and Project Builder are programming environments, Cocoa and Carbon are APIs and we don't have to worry about conflicts with CoCoA because it is destinguished by its capitals alone. IMHO. User:AlistairMcMillan 20:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) :How about: :* Quartz (graphics layer) :* Platinum (Macintosh) :* Aqua (Mac OS X) :* Carbon (computing) :* Cocoa (software) :or some such thing, with appropriate redirects and links from disambiguation pages? :User:MFNickster 23:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) :: I don't mean to be picky but... WebKit is a Framework, Cocoa is a great big number of Frameworks and Quartz Imaging is a corporation that has nothing to do with Apple. User:AlistairMcMillan 19:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::Sure, that's why I said "something ''like'' this." Would the general solution be applicable, i.e. more detail in the article name rather than trying to explain in parentheses what the context is? Disclaimers can always apply, for example "this article is about Apple's Quartz imaging model, which has nothing to do with Quartz Imaging Corporation," etc.
:::User:MFNickster 20:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::::I suppose that doing *_(computing) would be good... there seems to be quite a few other computing articles that use (computing), instead of someing more general like (technology). I'll move those pages in a while when I have time, or some else can do it. User:MilesK convinced me otherwise. --User:Ctachme 23:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hello; just weighing in with on observation. In general, when the title of an article needs to be disambiguated, one of three conventions are followed:
*The title is followed by an appositive in parentheses. This is generally used for proper nouns. Examples: John Williams (composer), Casablanca (movie), John Bull (locomotive), Iron Maiden (band), Monopoly (game) (note that both "iron maiden" and "monopoly" are common nouns but here they are used as proper nouns).
*The title is followed by a field or context area. This is generally used for common nouns with multiple meanings. Examples: window (computing), protocol (computing), cell (biology), graph (mathematics).
*The title is made more specific. This can be used for proper or common nouns. This is generally used when the full name is in either formal or common use. Examples: Java programming language, computer virus, computer mouse, Microsoft Windows.
Of those three options, the first seems most applicable to the debated articles. These article titles might be appropriate, but I'm not really formally proposing them:
*Quartz (graphics layer)
*Platinum (theme)
*Aqua (graphical user interface) ''[could conceivably be made shorter or more general, e.g. (user interface) or (GUI)]''
*Carbon (programming interfaces)
*Cocoa (programming environment)
*Mail (software) ''[or maybe (program); doesn't really need to be (Apple software) as there is no other software simply called "Mail"]''
I would however strongly disagree with appending (computing) or (Mac OS X) to disambiguate the titles. —User:MilesK (User_talk:MilesK) 01:23, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Update: There does seem to be a fourth category that deals with proper nouns disambiguated with the proper nouns of context, most often used with fictional elements of TV shows or movies, but I can't really determine when that should be used outside of fiction. —User:MilesK User_talk:MilesK 00:02, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
:I agree with most of what you say but not ''Mail (software)'', because that is far to easy to get confused with Mail Software, as in e-mail software. Maybe ''Mail (email client)''. But then what do you do with Installer.app? Installer (software)? Installer (installer software)? Or Address Book? --User:Ctachme 01:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::Based on Preview (software), Sherlock (software), Keynote (software), Apple Address Book, Apple Soundtrack, Installer (Mac OS X), Macintosh Finder and Safari (web browser), I would have to say... there's no clear precedent. And that is also something that needs to be decided. I would think that a general term that is common to as many articles as possible would be desirable, like "software" or "application" or "program". "Apple _____"-style titles and the like should be ruled out, since that isn't how Apple formally names its software. —User:MilesK (User_talk:MilesK) 02:16, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
:::So while before you said you like Safari (web browser), but now you want a term that is as common to as many articles as possible? So what do you want? --User:Ctachme 02:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::::I see nothing wrong with Safari (web browser), but if there were a naming convention to standardized Macintosh application (or other software) names, then I think that it should follow that convention. —User:MilesK (User_talk:MilesK) 02:40, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Just to be clear what I think is being suggested: use a general-as-possible noun to describe the actual word, like Platinum (theme). However, for things like Apple Mail we should do Mail (email client), because that will be in line with other software which tries to identify the genre (it appears that most disabigged software i've seen has the genre with it, I see no reason to change that. That said I actually will make the changes now. --User:Ctachme 22:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:I see you have done that. Unfortunately I don't think it was clear than any consensus has been reached, and the changes as they stand just seem even more of a mess to me. I particularly object to Cocoa (API) since Cocoa is NOT an API. (What does the 'A' stand for? Right.). Since all of these related articles have one thing in common - they are all solely Macintosh technologies - I think a common disambiguation such as umm, (Macintosh) would be more than adequate, and would help to unify all of these articles, as well as fixing the main problem, which is knowing what a related article is likely to be called when writing something that links to them. HOwever, whatever the scheme we go fo, a full consensus should be reached - I think changing the article titles now, as you have, is premature, and likely as not will just have to be undone again.User:GRAHAMUK 23:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::Go ahead and change it back. However, had I not done that no consensus would have been reached because people stopped discussing it for some reason. The whole point of wikipedia is to make changes, of course. There's nothing wrong with making a change today and then another change tommorrow. --User:Ctachme 23:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::Well, you're right in one respect - making a change certainly prompts discussion! However, if a discussion just dies out, that in itself is an outcome - it means people don't feel strongly enough and are happy with how it is, or at least not too bothered by how it is. Yes WP is about making changes, but changes to article titles should not be undertaken lightly, because it amounts to a lot of work, especially if there are many inbound links that need to be updated, as there are here. I suggest you change it back, since you did the deed - and let's either agree on a naming convention by consensus, or lese leave it as it is if there is none reached.User:GRAHAMUK 01:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::::You're quite wrong that people are content with it the way it is now... the consensus clearly is that we want some sort of standardization (apparently you just see the problem as what form that standardization should take). I ''will'' fix any changes I made ... but only after we have reached a decision (again... if you feel it's something that needs to be done do it yourself). --User:Ctachme 20:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::::I'm not saying there is nothing wrong with the current scheme, or that people are wholly content with it. Obviously not, and if you look further up you'll see I took part in the early stage of the discussion as well. What I'm saying is that there has not been a consensus reached YET. And until there is, making an arbitrary change on a whim as you have done is unhelpful and premature. Take one example - Apple Chess is now Chess (chess client). How is that going to help anyone? The title is now more complex, has lost its connection to the Mac platform, and will be the last thing anyone thinks of when looking for it by using a search. The previous name is entirely fine. Categories bring it into a group with other chess clients, so there is no need to place this redundant information in the article title as well. Other changes are equally wacky, but I won't enumerate them. My argument is, UNTIL a consensus about a change is reached, there should be NO CHANGE. This isn't to imply that there shouldn't ever be a change, or that the current scheme couldn't be improved. The arbitrary changes are highly detrimental to the findability of the articles, and do not adress the fundamental problem which caused this discussion, which is a lack of consistency. I ask you, please, change them back. If you don't I will, but since it's a non-trivial amount of work that you have created, and my time is limited, I really think you should do it. User:GRAHAMUK 00:15, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::::::I think we clearly disagree here. I see now that Cocoa (API) is a poor name because according to naming conventions the abbreviation should only be used when it is much more common and readily recognizable than the actual article. However, that has nothing to do with your argument, which is not about abbreviations, but about the philosophy behind the naming. If you look at the informal poll I just started, you can see that there are two different methods for disambiguation article names: using a descriptive noun and using a context. I used the descriptive noun. I don't really see how this is at all 'arbitrary.' As for Chess, I am in complete disagreement and cannot understand what you are thinking. Apple Chess is not perfectly fine. Apple Chess ''doesn't exist'', it never has! That's making up a completely arbitrary name for a program that has a name. That program is Chess plain and simple. If, however, you wanted to name it to Chess (Apple chess client) or just Chess (Apple software) as I suggested above (but decided against as you can clearly see). That would be understandable because you are then defining the ''context'' as per the naming conventions. The same goes for incorrect names such as Apple Mail and Apple Darwin, they are not merely poor choices for names... they are ''wrong''. --User:Ctachme 01:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
* How about "Chess.app"? per this page [http://developer.apple.com/darwin/projects/misc/]
:User:MFNickster 03:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:(Resetting the indenting, it's getting pushed too far off the right). OK, Apple Chess may not be the best name for the article, but it is still better than Chess (chess client), because a) it refers specifically to the Mac OS X Chess program, and b) gives readers a reasonable chance of finding it in a search. Personally my proposal would be that all Mac OS X related articles should be suffixed (Mac OS X), or perhaps (Macintosh) or (Mac), in which case Chess (Mac OS X) would be ideal. Cocoa (API) is wrong not because of the abbreviation reason, but because Cocoa is not an API! As you put it yourself, it's not merely a poor choice of name, it's wrong. I think we have to keep in mind that Wikipedia is here to serve its users and that means primarily its readers. Its writers are also its users of course, and that's where this argument started - naming articles so that linking to them while writing another becomes predictable. Its the desire for predictability that is behind my proposal that a common suffix be adopted, and using one such as (Macintosh) or (Mac OS X) also serves the reader in that it means that chances are if you know one article about a Mac program is titled in this way, then you can guess that another will be too, and so it will be a simple matter to put that in a search. I don't see how a multitude of suffixes which may be technically correct but unfindable and unpredictable serves anybody except pedants. Your proposal for (Apple software) isn't too bad - it can be applied to most of the articles we are taking about, but a more succinct (Mac OS X) or just (Mac) would be better IMO since it's easier to remember, easier to type and applies across a wide range of differing kinds of articles (i.e. hardware and software technologies, as well as application programs, etc). But coming back to your point - we don't disagree fundamentally. I think a change is probably necessary, I just don't think it should be made yet until we decide WHAT the change should be. I appreciate your desire to force the issue by making a change, but it hasn't been sufficiently thought through. Also, while there are naming conventions established for disambiguating titles, it doesn't mean that we are forced to stick to them if they don't fit our needs. WP is still evolving, so those "rules" are not set in concrete. I think for this particular area, the rules are inadequate, since there isn't a generic noun that can be applied across the board. The one thing that all of the articles have in comon is the platform of which they are a part, so let's use that.
:What's needed here is more input from others so a decision can be made. And yes, a decision that ends up as "do nothing" is still a decision, which we should agree to abide by if that is the consensus. I think we should turn this into a poll - first, we'll request the proposed options, then we'll take a vote on the options. So, let's get the ball rolling - please add your proposal(s) to the list below.
*1. A unified suffix for all Mac related articles:
** a) (Mac)
** b) (Macintosh)
** c) (Mac OS X)
*2. Diverse suffixes for different technology areas:
** a) (Mac Application), (Mac API), (Mac software), etc...
*3. Leave it exactly as it was. (The default, if no consensus is reached).
(please append further proposals or extend the existing ones and number/letter them clearly so a vote can be taken later).
Please use the topic at the bottom of the page that I already created in an attempt to do exactly this --User:Ctachme 01:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
==What should the versions be called?==
I'd like to standardize the names of the articles for the Mac OS X versions, and decide on a consistent way of referring to the versions in the articles themselves. As I see it, It comes down to two questions. - User:Brian Kendig 02:34, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(1) '''Should the version numbers have a 'v' in them,?''' Apple's usage includes the 'v' - as in, Mac OS X v10.4 - because the 'X' is pronounced "ten" and saying "mac os ten ten point four" sounds weird. Apple's naming of its products is reflected elsewhere in Wikipedia as well, such as words not being capitalized in iPod shuffle or Mac mini. However, Google shows more hits on Mac OS X 10.4 without the 'v' than with it. Should the article names and the articles themselves reflect Apple's naming, or the colloquial usage?
(2) Should the versions be referred to by number, by cat name, or by both? That is, should it be Mac OS X v10.4 (with or without the 'v', depending on the previous poll), or Mac OS X Tiger, or Mac OS X v10.4 \"Tiger\" (Apple uses the quotes), or Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger (without the quotes)? Note that if the cat names are used, versions 10.0 and 10.1 will still be referred to as "Mac OS X v10.0" and "Mac OS X v10.1" because their cat names weren't part of their official public names.
*Apple itself doesn't seem to have a standard for this: The box for 10.2 is labeled ''Mac OS X Version 10.2 Jaguar'' whereas the box for 10.3 is labeled ''Mac OS X Panther Version 10.3''. The mock-up boxes for 10.4 on the Apple store appear to just say ''Mac OS X Tiger'' but it's hard to tell. User:JeremyA 02:49, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::It didn't occur to me to look at the boxes for 10.2 and 10.3 - I'm just going off the most recent style that Apple uses on its web site. - User:Brian Kendig 02:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:The "big cat" code names should probably be left off the article titles, but possibly used in redirect pages. I think the titles are good the way they are now, with the 'v', following Apple's convention and not the colloquial usage. Leaving out the 'v' may be common, but that doesn't make it any more correct by its popularity. Apple's convention makes sense if these are versions of an OS product named "Mac OS X," even if the "ten" gets repeated. It doesn't make much sense if you consider Mac OS X to be a new and different product from Mac OS 9 (so Tiger would really be v1.4 of "Mac OS X") In a similar vein, System 7.5.3 was still a version of "System 7" even though the minor version numbers had increased. Glad they didn't call it "System 7 v7.5.3" though!
:User:MFNickster 04:21, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I vote for anything that is based on the version number, either the "Mac OS X 10.x" or the "Mac OS X v10.x" format. Using the cat names is a bad idea for reasons I explained on the 10.4 Talk page, and using both just ends up with really unwieldy ugly overly-long links. User:AlistairMcMillan 04:35, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." That means reading the tea leaves of Apple's package designs and scrutinizing the text of their web site to divine the True Name of the releases is not the answer. Also, even if you settle on an official version of the name, that doesn't mean that every reference to it has to use that name. We don't spell out "President George Herbert Walker Bush" every time we talk about W's dad; we call him whatever makes sense in the context of the article. User:Tverbeek 12:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
So it looks like people aren't in favor of having the cats in the article names, but we need opinions on whether or not to keep the 'v' in the article names. If we do decide to keep the 'v', then I'll need someone who's an admin to please move Mac OS X 10.0 to Mac OS X v10.0, and Mac OS X 10.1 to Mac OS X v10.1. It appears that when Cantus moved them to the non-'v' names, he edited the redirect pages (simply capitalizing the word 'redirect') to prevent me from undoing his move. - User:Brian Kendig 02:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
: Since Google has the most results for Mac OS X 10.3 and the like I say we revert back to the ways it's always been and forget the whole issue. --User:Ctachme 03:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::50,000,000 Elvis fans ''can'' be wrong! - User:MFNickster
Between this vote and the discussion on Talk:Mac OS X v10.4, I'm seeing an equal count of people who want 'v' in the names and those who don't. I'm also seeing that people generally don't really care too much about it. So I'm going to leave Mac OS X v10.2 and Mac OS X v10.3 and Mac OS X v10.4 because they reflect Apple's naming, and I'm going to ask an admin to rename Mac OS X 10.0 and Mac OS X 10.1 to add the 'v'. - User:Brian Kendig 20:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:Then allow me to weigh in specifically saying that I don't like "Mac OS X v10._". Nobody except Apple puts a "v" in there in actual usage, and while I respect Apple's right to establish official trademarks, that is not our concern here. Our concern is what people actually refer to them as. User:Tverbeek 02:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::In that case, if we're going with popular opinion, Tiger would be "Mac OS X.4" or "Mac OS 10.4", if they're not using the code names. Virtually nobody, including Apple, refers to it in common parlance as "Mac OS X version 10.4" or "Mac OS X version 4." The "v.10.4" style is formally correct, and the "version 10.4" style is the common usage. They're really not that far apart, considering that "v." is an abbreviation of "version." Oh, and for that matter, whether you or I like or dislike it isn't really relevant; we're concerned with accuracy, not POV.
::User:MFNickster 07:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::What I "don't like" is someone pushing a usage that is awkward and not particularly widespread in the real world. Further, I find it surprising that you'd cite "Mac OS X.4" as "popular"; I use it myself to be clever, but I've rarely seen it elsewhere. What - other than the fact that somebody ''didn't like'' its failure to comply with Apple's official usage - was wrong with "Mac OS X 10._"? It is A) highly popular, B) clear and unambiguous as to the topic of the article, C) consistent with standard product-name-followed-immediately-by-a-number notation (since "Mac OS X" is effectively the product name), and D) easy to link to. It wasn't broken. User:Tverbeek 12:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::::Sorry, I should have made the distinction between how people write it and how they say it. Most people ''say'' "oh ess ten point four" or, if they're really clueless, "oh ess ex ten point four." I've never heard anyone (either from Apple or personal acquaintance) say "oh ess ten ten point four" or "oh ess ten version ten point four." I can't tell you what's "wrong" with "Mac OS X 10.x" except that it's not very accurate going from Apple's materials. That's all; it's not subjectively better or worse IMHO. User:MFNickster 13:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::::How people ''say'' it isn't the question. (No one ever pronounces the "slash" in "OS/2", but there it is in the article name.) Nor is Apple's usage the question. (The Open Group hates it when people write "Unix-like", but we do.) The question is: What has the best combination of clarity, disambiguity, and ease of use, for an independent, popular-use encyclopedia? I think inserting the "v" makes it less easy, and gains no real clarity or disambiguity. The topics of pronunciation and formal usage are better covered ''in'' the articles. User:Tverbeek 13:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::::::Good points. I vote that the articles be named with the word "Version" for clarity and that redirects be put in place for titles including the common usage and abbreviations, i.e. redirecting "Mac OS X 10.4," "Mac OS 10.4," "Mac OS X Tiger," and "Mac OS X v10.4" to an article titled "Mac OS X Version 10.4"
::::::User:MFNickster 22:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::::::Adding "Version" only makes the name longer, and unless you expect people to use that format in the text of other articles (they won't), it requires the use of piped links or redirects for wikilinks. What exactly do you have against "making linking to those articles easy and second nature" as Wikipedia policy suggests? User:Tverbeek 00:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::::::: I agree... I still don't see what's wrong with Mac OS X 10.3 --User:Ctachme 00:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::::::::: Is the "Version" proposal serious? —User:MilesKUser_talk:MilesK 01:05, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
::::::::: Debate over this seems to have died down, but at this point I'd just like to say that the "Mac OS X v10.''x''" format makes the most sense to use, for the reasons of being the official Apple usage, making technical sense, and the fact that it doesn't really matter—thanks to redirects, people will find it with or without the v. —User:MilesKUser_talk:MilesK 03:44, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
The ''Mac OS X v10.x'' format gets my vote. User:AlistairMcMillan 04:18, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
== Tiger: 8A425 or 8A428? ==
Article mentions 8A425 in late March 2005 is the GM for Tiger. Various rumor sites say 8A428 in April 2005. Can anyone provide a solid reference for one or the other? If not, it should be removed until April 29th. --User:Sdfisher 06:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:Remove until Tiger is available. I work on Tiger at Apple, and things can change at the last minute - don't believe anything about it until you get a copy off a store shelf. User:Stan Shebs 13:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::I agree. Done. Thanks for your input. :) --User:Sdfisher 00:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::Can someone please explain why so many people have a problem understanding that pre-release information is not final? This is so damn stupid. Guys, until the date ticks and it officially goes, it isn't set in stone. Apple could withdraw and re-issue the 10.4 build. Sure, it would be expensive, but '''they've done it in the past''' with previous releases. Leave it for now. It's better to be missing something than have bad information. Personally, I'm sick of making this edit, so I'm just cutting it out this time. Learn. --User:Sdfisher 14:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:::It's probably my own darn fault. I've edited the article to reflect the expected build number, the accidental shipping, and why 8A428 might not be the final release. Hopefully that will hold until the 29th. --User:Sdfisher 14:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
== Too many links ==
We have excessive links here. I'm going to remove ArsTechnica preview reviews.
: I've restored the preview review links that were deleted. They do a pretty good job of illustrating the evolution of Mac OS X, so I think it is worth keeping them around. User:AlistairMcMillan 00:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
: What about getting rid of the recently added creativebits link? Doesn't seem to be anything unique, popular or timely there. --User:Sdfisher 01:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
While we are on the subject, do any of the real editors here value the www.macosx.com link at all. I've been a Mac user since Mac OS X was released and visit a long list of Mac websites, forums and blogs regularly, but I'd never once heard of www.macosx.com until a bunch of anon IP editors started spamming it here on Wikipedia. That's why I kept pulling it recently every time it was added, but I wanted to ask just in case it is really popular and I've just somehow missed it. User:AlistairMcMillan 01:09, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:I'd never heard of it, and it doesn't seem to have anything especially unique or interesting. I recommend removing it and letting people find it via Google or Dmoz - Wikipedia is not a link repository. - User:Brian Kendig 01:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:I have been a long time Mac user, and Apple II user prior to those days. I discovered MacOSX.com a few years ago and have found it to be a really helpful site. What they lack in content (news articles, etc) they make up for in answering my core support needs. In fact, rarely do I post their do I find they can't help me out. More recently, they are now offering a personal support service (outside the forums) and it's all free. I think this is a must have link for this page. Just my 10 cents worth. I hadn't heard of other links listed here, so will have to check out a few of those sites as well. So, awareness I don't think should be a factor in if it stays or not. - User:Niceguyosx 06:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::Hi Niceguy, I see you're new here. Unfortunately, many people try to hijack wikipedia to place unnecessary links here as a form of self-promotion. This is considered a form of pagerank vandalism. As the site in question has an alexa rank of almost 300,000, it's probably not notable enough to be included at this time. --User:DropDeadGorgias User_talk:DropDeadGorgias 18:48, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
:::Weird, when I run a Alexa.com rank on that site it shows up as 58,421. In fact, I compared the ones listed... www.macosxhints.com, 39,401 - www.macfixit.com, 51,704 - www.macosx.com, 58,421 - www.osxfaq.com, 101,873. Looks like it's in line with the other sites listed. -- User:Niceguyosx 19:09, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
::::Are we using the same search? Under "Site stats for macosx.com" I see a Traffic rank of 295,424. For macosxhints.com, I see a traffic rank of 5,724 and for macfixit.com I see 7,478. osxfaq shows up as 63,717, so I could see that being removed, but it's borderline. Over 100,000 we usually throw them out. --User:DropDeadGorgias User_talk:DropDeadGorgias 22:03, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
::::I just went to Alexa.com and did a search to get the results for the site. Type in macosxhints.com and it will show the current page rank. -- User:Niceguyosx 22:23, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
::::Ah! I see what you are looking at, the 3 mo numbers change. Like on Macfixit, it shows its ranks has moved up by 7,478. The actual rating is the "Today" rating or the number listed for the actual traffic ranking. If you do a search using the traffic-rating button links on the right hand side for a given site, it gives you a number, more of a avg I think. -- User:Niceguyosx 22:32, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
::::Ok, Ill be the first to admit, I never use Alexa, so I had to figure all this out. Okay, it appears the "number" Alexa uses as the official "site rank" number is the 3 mo avg. The 3 mo change is it's rank change over the last 3 months (Im assuming only). macosxhints.com showed a avg ranking of around 12,000 today, while macosx.com showed 58,000. However, last week, macosx.com showed a 1 week avg of 12,000 while macosxhints.com is 23,000. So, if we are going to judge a site based on Alexa, then it should be their 3mo number or number they display when you do a search on a given site or use the traffic rank "buttons" results. What a mess. ;) -- User:Niceguyosx 22:44, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
And why has macosx.com's rank moved up recently? Could it be because we are linking to it now? User:AlistairMcMillan 18:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:Who cares. For ease of use we should just use the rank given on the first info page for the site. It still shows up as 290,000+, so until it's less than 100k lets not add it. --User:DropDeadGorgias User_talk:DropDeadGorgias 20:02, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
::I agree. Let's go with what Alexa.com says. It shows macosx.com with 58,421 ranking [The link is here.[http://www.alexa.com/data/details/?url=macosx.com]] so it stays.. OSXfaq.com goes, it's higher than 100,000. -- User:Niceguyosx 01:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Okay, since no editors (aside from Niceguyosx who has zero edits aside from comments on this Talk page) suggested we keep the macosx.com link I'm pulling it. User:AlistairMcMillan 23:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:I continue to see the alexa rank as 295,424. I am removing the link, and you should all be very aware of the Wikipedia:Three Revert Rule. Please stop this ridiculous revert war. We are not going to allow your linkspam in this article. --User:DropDeadGorgias User_talk:DropDeadGorgias 18:11, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
::You all crack me up! :D Last check, Alexa.com shows macosx.com at 49,650. I'd like to see a link showing your numbers "DropDeadGorgias". So, AlistairMcMillan, my contributions don't matter because I'm new to the scene? I see. How very thoughtful. I'd like to begin to start editing and helping out. Looks like OSXFAQ.com gets to stay, they are at 98,743 today. -- User:Niceguyosx 19:44, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
:::Are you somehow affiliated with the site? If you look at the site, it looks like a standard adfarm. I don't see what value that site adds to the links already present on the document. If you can provide some example of the content that makes this site worthwhile, we will consider adding it. I'm not sure what alexa tool you're using, but why are you giving two different numbers for the alexa rank? --User:DropDeadGorgias User_talk:DropDeadGorgias 20:15, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
::::I visit it a few times a week and see whats going on. The reason I think it is a good resource link is not so much the content of the site (articles and what not) but the individual support they provide. If I have an issue I can just go their and ask and one of the volunteers will get back with me. Everyone behind the scenes is a volunteer. I don't feel they have any more ads than Ars Technica or other Mac sites listed in the Wikipedia support links. Besides, I use Firefox and that removes the ads. But, as for content, they have 5 year old messageboard full of good information, they make their private volunteer support tech support questions available to everyone once they close, which is a lot of fun to look through, helps with the learning process. If it was just a forums site, I'd say... leave it off Wikipedia. But, their volunteer supported tech support is worthy of mention. I noticed an article on Wired News that mentioned them and their volunteer tech support in a article about Tiger, so it isn't a unknown site by any means.
::::As for Alexa.com numbers, it appears those numbers change every few days. Previously, I wrote they had a ranking of around 58,000, but when I looked at it today, it was at 49,000. If you reference the link in my previous post concerning the numbers, you will see that Alexa.com shows their ranking at 49,000. macosxhints.com went to 39,000 and osxfaq.com dropped from 101,000 to 98,000. (Im rounding numbers FYI) So, Im getting those numbers straight from the alexa.com website. The 295,000 number you mentioned is the "change" number, not it's current ranking. -- User:Niceguyosx 21:44, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I decided to take my first "Editor" roll and attack this one issue. From what I gather, AlistairMcMillan doesn't like the link because a) he has never heard of it, b) someone "spammed" it and c) someone appeared to be a in a dog fight with him over the link. DropDeadGorgias only real hang up on the link is that he feels that it's Alexa.com rating is higher than 100,000... which it is not. It is at 49,000. I have verified this via the Alexa toolbar and a host of other gadgets and results on the Alexa.com website. All show the same number. I, personally speaking, like the linked site. I think it is a primary candidate for being listed. The reason I mention this is that it provides a unique personal support feature most other sites don't. It has over 30,000 registered users, MacOSXHints.com which is also listed (and a great resource I might add) has around 28,000, so about the same size. macosx.com has around 350,000 posts, and macosxhints has around 200,000. macosxhints is around 10,000 points higher than macosx.com on the Alexa scale, whatever that means. But, the key here is they are totally different sites, which is why I feel macosx.com should be listed. It provides a resouce no other Mac site provides, individual support outside of a forum. Since I don't have history as AlistairMcMillan applies to me, a man has to start somewhere... so, although heads will probably roll, I am going to add macosx.com to the list. It's a gutzy move, I realize but I have been known to stand up for the underdog before. Call me a softy. I'd really like to take a greater roll in helping out around here if I can. I am hoping we can all get along and respect each. -- User:Niceguyosx 5:30, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
: If you want to help out here then please contribute something useful. Adding a link that has been repeatedly spammed by a number of anon IP editors (with no other edits) and then removed from this page by a number of editors (not just me) is not helping. User:AlistairMcMillan 14:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that if the intent of linking to the Ars Technica reviews is to show the development of the OS, they should be moved to Mac OS history or Mac OS X history, particularly since so much of it is no longer current. As for the fight over MacOSX.com, rather than quibbling over its ranking in somebody's search engine, the better question is why we're linking to sites of this sort in the first place. The purpose of a Wikipedia article is to provide information about ____. It is not to help people find tips for how to use it, support for how to fix it, news about stuff related to it, etc. So it's not our job to find these sites for people (that's what God created search engines for), which is why it's not our job to pick out the "right" ones. The only sites we should be linking to are those that confirm or supplement the topic of this page: "What is Mac OS X?" User:Tverbeek 16:22, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
*I agree—the only link that is currently on the page that should stay is the direct link to Apple's Mac OS X page, everything else should go. -- User:JeremyA 16:30, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
I'd be in the "remove the external links completely" camp, particularly the link to the spectacularly-useless-unless-you-pay-them-money macfixit.com. User:Nandesuka 00:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
:I second (or third, or whatever) that. Wikipedia is not a link repository. This article should contain only the official Apple web site for Mac OS X - that way it kills all arguments over what other links are "worthy". - User:Brian Kendig 04:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not a link repository" does not mean no links at all. I've cleaned out the obvious links that shouldn't have been there, I'll leave the rest for someone else to decide. About the Ars Technica links, I would have moved them to wherever we discuss the development of Mac OS X through the various releases, except we don't really cover that anywhere. Mac OS X history only covers the development up to the first release and all the other pages like Mac OS X and the individual release pages don't really cover anything except for the obvious wow-look features that Apple use to market each new releases. User:AlistairMcMillan 05:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
*I've A) moved the Ars Technica links to Mac OS X history, along with the related material from Mac OS history that was more relevant to the OS X article, and B) removed the other news/support sites that were of debatable informational value and encouraged the addition of other promotional links. I left the link to Apple.com for obvious reasons. I left the kernelthread.com link because it is highly informative, generally balanced, and non-commercial in nature. User:Tverbeek 11:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
== Core Data ==
Is Core Data worthy of mention?
:Well, you just did, so it must be! It's an important piece of technology for developers, but it's of virtually no interest to end-users. It will probably get a mention on the Cocoa page, though that article is already way too long. User:GRAHAMUK 07:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
== Unix certification ==
I think this section is a little off, and would like to change it. However, I'm not sure what to change it to. This is what I was thinking of. Any comments?
Current text:
: Apple claims that they use the term as a genericized trademark and that the cost of certification would make the OS prohibitively expensive, although The Open Group has stated that there is a US$110,000 upper limit on the cost of certification for one company.
Proposed replacement:
:Apple claims that they use the term as a genericized trademark and that the cost of certification would make the OS prohibitively expensive. The Open Group has stated that there is a US$110,000 upper limit on the cost of certification for one company. This limit is for The Open Group's certification process and does not include any development or testing support Apple may need to do, so both companies may be right simultaneously.
--User:Sdfisher 03:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*Umm, that sounds fine. I may not be as versed in this area, so maybe you can give an example of the kind of development or testing support Apple would have to add by being a certified UNIX? --User:DropDeadGorgias User_talk:DropDeadGorgias 13:59, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
:Well, I'm not an expert, but I expect it would be an internal project with a part-time manager and a couple experts as resources for the cerification process, plus some developers/designers for corrections. Stuff doesn't just happen. Or am I nuts? --User:Sdfisher 11:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
== Informal poll: How to name Macintosh related articles? ==
There is currently discussion on how to name Macintosh related articles. According to Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Topic_articles there are two ways you can disambiguate the names of articles. Please choose one of the two to support for Macintosh related articles.
*"a generic noun describing what the specific title is an instance of" -- some examples of this method are Quartz (graphics layer) or Safari (web browser) -- if this option is chosen a method for determining the noun should be determined.
*"the subject or context to which the term applies" -- some examples of this method are Classic (Mac OS X) or Alias (Mac OS) -- if this option is chosen a term that is to be used should be determined.
Comment: I think that a balance should be struck by picking the method that seems most appropriate to the article at hand. For the examples given above, I think the choices of disambiguation are good. It is true that Quartz and Safari are both only used for Mac OS X, but that is not somthing that is inherent to them—potentially (however unlikely) Quartz and Safari could be ported to another operating system. On the other hand, the concept of Classic is intimately tied to the Mac OS— it almost certainly would be called something else if it were running on some other operating system. Similarly, an ''alias'' is just the Mac OS-specific name for something that exists in many other operating systems. This is just my interpretation of course, and others I expect can reasonably disagree, but I don't think it is necessary to make all Macintosh-related articles have a consistent system for disambiguation. Discretion and careful judgment should be all that is necessary to pick the best disambiguator. However, if all else fails, I'd recommend falling back on the generic noun method—it is the more familiar and intuitive method—in general, I think the context method should only be applied when there isn't a good generic noun that would be clear and concise. User:Nohat 05:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:Agree, 100%. User:Tverbeek 11:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:My view is that one term should be used, and (Macintosh) or (Mac OS X) is my proposal - in the unlikely event that Quartz or Safari etc ever do move to another OS, we can reconsider at that time - I don't think we should cloud the issue with what might happen in the future. The problem we are trying to solve here seems to me quite simpl e- a) how to make it easy to guess, when writing a related article, what a linked page is called and b) making it easy for a user to search for an article by guessing the name based on one they already know. Threse are really two sidees of the sam ecoin, and the solution is consistency. I think using the generic noun will actually end up leading to a proliferation of titles which appear unrelated, where in reality they are all related to the Mac OS platform - so in other words it's a question of whether we wish to group them according to their functional area (e.g. chess clients vs. web browsers) or by the fact that they are Mac-related. Since categories exist to serve the former need, then given the consistency problem, we should definitely opt for titling that links the articles to the platform.User:GRAHAMUK 05:57, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::This all assumes that anyone who is working on or interested in these articles is doing so because they are related to the Mac. This is, of course, not necessarily the case. Using the very same consistency argument you make, someone who is interested in web browsers would argue that all web browsers that require disambiguation should use the consistent disambiguator "web browser". Is there anything other than your own prejudice that makes the fact that all these articles are Mac OS related the most salient characteristic for the purposes of disambiguation? Many of the articles in question just as easily fit into other categories—why should it be that the fact that they are Mac OS-related necessarily be the way they are disambiguated? User:Nohat 07:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:Not that I'm preannouncing anything :-), but Nohat makes a good point about generic code bits or technology; just because they are Mac-only today doesn't mean they will always be that way. QuickTime is an existing example of something that is no longer Mac-only. Another way to look at it is that a better disambiguator is an "is-a", not a "related-to" - Safari "is-a" browser, not "is-a" Mac OS X. For instance, we're more likely to use "(naval officer)" as a person disambiguator than "(US Navy)". User:Stan Shebs 11:45, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:: To your first point, if Cocoa/whatever gets ported to Windows/Linux/whatever (which is unlikely) then we can change the title then. To your second, how about "(Macintosh software)" then? Personally I vote for just sticking "(Macintosh)" on the end. Lets just keep it simple and move on already. I think the most important thing with the names is to make it simple for editors to locate them. Readers are not going to try "Safari (anything)" as their first attempt at locating an article, they'll try "Safari" and that will either point them to the right place or point them to a disambig page that will point them to the right place. User:AlistairMcMillan 04:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
::To pick up on Nohat's comment - no it certainly isn't my prejudice that leads me to my proposal. It's simply that all the articles in question have only this one thing in common. Cocoa and Carbon are developer technologies (APIs if you like, though they are more than that), Safari is a web browser, Quartz is a core OS technology, etc. If they are all named accordingly, they have apparently nothing in common, and the consistency problem multiplies. Categories adequately solve this issue - Safari is in the web browsers category, Quartz in software technologies etc. Categories could also solve the Mac platform issue as well, except that the basic problem is disambiguating the titles - Quartz is not the silica crystal material, and Carbon isn't the element... so something has to be added to the titles, and so by using (Mac) or whatever (it could be XYZ123 for all I care, as long as it's consistent) we provide a common titling scheme that is predictable. Remember, it's in searching and linking articles that the problem of all the disparate titles arises. If we end up with Safari (web browser), Quartz (Graphics technology) etc then that simply hasn't addressed the fundamental issue at hand - all it will have done is duplicate poorly what categories already do very well. Nobody will be any better off - they'll still have to seek out the article before being able to confidently make a link to it. At least at the moment the existing titles have been around long enough that most of us who have written articles linking to them have learned all the quirks. Changing them is just a change. Only a change to a consistent naming scheme is a change worth making. User:GRAHAMUK 05:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
:::Making all the Mac OS articles have a consistent disambiguator would not really be adding consistency; it would just be exchanging one inconsistency with another. We would have Opera (web browser), Mosaic (web browser), Lynx (web browser), Arena (web browser), but Safari (Mac OS X). That's not very consistent, is it? User:Nohat 08:23, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
::::That's what i've been trying to do when I moved Quartz from Quartz (Mac OS X) to Quartz (graphics layer)... i.e. we ''can'' be consistent, in always doing the method of using a noun instead of a category. ''(note: the preceding comment was made by User:Ctachme. —User:MilesKUser_talk:MilesK 21:18, May 2, 2005 (UTC))''
:::::I think I have made my point, ad nauseam. Yet it also appears as if I'm not making myself understood. Yes, all those web browsers have (web browser) after them, but they are cross platform, and that is what they have in common. The disambiguation is necessary because they are distinct from e.g. Opera the artform, Lynx the animal, etc. So they need it, even though it is duplicating the web browser category. But it always comes back to this: whenever I am writing a Mac-related article, and I want to link to e.g. Safari, or Cocoa, or Quartz, I cannot tell without opening another browser window, searching for the article, etc what the damn thing is called. Same for a reader doing a search. Well, perhaps for Safari that might be acceptable to call it Safari (web browser), but other technologies are not so easily predicted. OK, ''I'' know Quartz is a graphics layer, but how would I guess that that was the actual disambiguation used? Instead of say (graphics), or (software), etc? It's pretty arbitrary, and assumes that the term "graphics layer" is widely understood. I contend this, especially for the average lay-reader who is looking for information about Quartz. One could argue that the very act of looking up such in an encyclopedia means that they do NOT know what it is... However, they'd have a fighting chance if all Mac-related articles had a common disambiguation, or at least if most of them did (Safari aside, poor example). Cocoa (Mac), Carbon (Mac), Quartz (Mac), is so much easier and more predictable that trying to simply duplicate categories. (Substitute whatever you like for (Mac) I'm not bothered, as long as a single term is applied, but NOT (API) which is inaccurate). The category disambiguation already assumes you know what the subject is about, which somewhat defeats the purpose of an encyclopedia, and doesn't help a writer linking to the article because you still have to go and look up the arbitrary and unpredictable naming.
:::::My further argument is this: If we cannot agree on how to make a useful and worthwhile change, let's leave it as it is. Which means reverting the pre-emptive changes made recently. This is not to say that I don't see anything wrong with the current system, but it's been in place long enough so that at least writers have got used to the quirks; I know it's Carbon (computing) and Cocoa (software) for example. This doesn't help readers much but at least some of us are used to this. I have written, contributed to or started many of the Mac-related articles on Wikipedia, and it's always necessary to link to many related articles. With the recent changes I can no longer do that, since I have no idea what they are called any more. User:GRAHAMUK 00:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
::::::''"But it always comes back to this: whenever I am writing a Mac-related article, and I want to link to e.g. Safari, or Cocoa, or Quartz, I cannot tell without opening another browser window, searching for the article, etc what the damn thing is called."'' Graham, I understand that this is an important argument. But it shouldn't really matter, thanks to redirects. It's perfectly legitimate to use redirects for this. Even if the article on Quartz (graphics layer) stays at Quartz (graphics layer), we can have redirects to it from Quartz (graphics layer), Quartz (Mac OS X), or whatever else people are most likely to write. In fact, I think it would be prudent for all Mac OS X-related technologies like Quartz, Dashboard, Spotlight, Cocoa, the Dock, WHATEVER, to have redirects that end in (Mac OS X) redirecting to whatever the article is. Ease of linking is preserved and it now becomes possible to apply a standard naming convention.
::::::''"With the recent changes I can no longer do that, since I have no idea what they are called any more."'' You can continue to use the same article names that you have always used, since moving a page creates a redirect. I agree that it was premature for Ctachme to move the pages, but I want to say that (in general) just become a consensus cannot be reached does not mean the way that's currently being used is best, or even adequate. —User:MilesKUser_talk:MilesK 01:02, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
::::::''' Yet it also appears as if I'm not making myself understood.''' -- just because people don't agree with you doesn't mean they don't understand your aguments... I understand you prefectly and think you are completely wrong. The generic noun method as outlined above is clearly the more popular method (look at all the (web browers) ... Safari is no different), and as such we should try to standardize to that. Mac software is no different from Linux software. As MilesK pointed out, you can still have rediects pointing to pages if you feel somthing is not clear. But either way I think nouns is the best way to go. --User:Ctachme 01:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
:::::::OK, I've made my point, I won't reiterate it. We'll have to agree to disagree - nouns are fine as such, but what IS Cocoa, Carbon, Quartz, etc? Good luck in coming up with a noun that works for some of these that is short, and accurate. Safari I accept, it's a bad example anyway. Regarding redirects - of course the redirects remain, but I thought the idea was to eliminate as many of these as possible, especially for cross-linking? User:GRAHAMUK 01:49, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
::::::::Yeah, it is difficult to come up with nouns for technologies that aren't easy to summarize in a word or two. I kind of feel like I'm waffling here, but personally, I don't care what convention is followed in disambiguating the articles so long as a convention is followed. I was just pointing out that, thanks to redirects, multiple conventions can be followed and ease-of-linking can be preserved.
::::::::This discussion kind of seems to have taken over the Mac OS X Talk page and simultaneously outgrown it. Would it be possible to split it off into some prototype WP:NC, a WikiProject, or a subpage of this talk page? —User:MilesKUser_talk:MilesK 02:30, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
::::::::Might I suggest that we use the generic nouns that e.g. Apple uses in the official documentation? Cocoa is an ''application environment'' [http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/index.html]. Quartz is a ''graphics system'' [http://developer.apple.com/graphicsimaging/quartz/]. Carbon is a ''set of APIs'' [http://developer.apple.com/carbon/overview.html] or a ''C interface'' [http://developer.apple.com/referencelibrary/GettingStarted/GS_Carbon/index.html]. Aqua is a ''user interface'' [http://www.apple.com/macosx/overview/aquauserinterface.html]. And so on. This isn't rocket science, people. User:Nohat 07:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
(Resetting indentation due to excessively narrow page width)
The problem is these descriptions are inconsistent with other parts of wikipedia, which appears to be what you were mainly pushing for before, so how would this help us? Also, even Apple's descriptions seem a bit off to me - Cocoa is far more than an "application environment" - you can write many types of executable objects with it, not just applications. Likewise with Carbon. "Graphics system" might fly... Is there a way to move this forward? Seems to me we need to get a grip on exactly what the problem is, the size of it, and a what all the various proposed solutions actually are. Then we can eliminate the obvious non-starters and take a vote on the rest. I'm with MilesK - perhaps we should move all of this into a subpage or other article type where it can be worked on. Perhaps someone with a bit more familiarity with WP procedures than I have could take the initiative here? User:GRAHAMUK 00:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
*How about the more general "programming environment" for Cocoa? User:Tverbeek 13:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
==Collective nouns and British vs. American English ==
I see there's a revert war going on with regard to:
:''rv - "Apple" is a singular noun, it's one corporation.''
You all realize/realise that this is a difference between British English and American English, right? In British English, corporations are "collective nouns" (regarding all the members of the corporation) and therefore, plural. In American English, a corporation seems to refer more to "the body" ("corpus") and so is taken as singular.
In general, the Wiki policy with regard to "Corporate" articles is to set them in the version of English that is natural for the home of the corporation (so, in this case, America and American English). But if the article is already set in mostly British English, then it should stay uniformly that way until someone can se-set the entire article.
User:Atlant 11:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Mac OS X is Apple Computer's Berkeley Software Distribution Unix-based operating system. BSDMac OS
#REDIRECT Mac OS X
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Mac_OS_X:
Mac_OS-X
MAC_OS_X
Mac_OS_X
Mac_OS_X
Mac_OS_X
Mac_os_x
Mac_OS_X.4
Mac_OS_X/Archive
Mac_OS_X/Carbon
Mac_OS_X/Classic
Mac_OS_X/Cocoa
Mac_OS_X/Cocoa
Mac_OS_XI
Mac_OS_X_10
Mac_OS_X_10.0
Mac_OS_X_10.0
Mac_OS_X_10.1
Mac_OS_X_10.2
Mac_OS_X_10.2
Mac_OS_X_10.2_Jaguar
Mac_OS_X_10.3
Mac_OS_X_10.3_Panther
Mac_OS_X_10.4
Mac_OS_X_10.4
Mac_os_x_10.4
Mac_OS_X_10.4_"Tiger"
Mac_OS_X_10.4_Tiger
Mac_os_x_10.4_tiger
Mac_OS_X_10.5
Mac_OS_X_Box.jpeg
Mac_OS_X_history
Mac_OS_X_history
Mac_OS_X_Leopard
Mac_os_x_leopard
Mac_OS_X_Panther
Mac_OS_X_Public_Beta
Mac_OS_X_Server
Mac_OS_X_Server_1.0
Mac_os_x_software
Mac_OS_X_stubs
Mac_OS_X_Tiger
Mac_os_x_tiger
Mac_OS_X_v10.0
Mac_OS_X_v10.0
Mac_OS_X_v10.1
Mac_OS_X_v10.2
Mac_OS_X_v10.2
Mac_OS_X_v10.2_"Jaguar"
Mac_OS_X_v10.2_"Jaguar"
Mac_OS_X_v10.3
Mac_OS_X_v10.3
Mac_OS_X_v10.3_"Panther"
Mac_OS_X_v10.3_"Panther"
Mac_OS_X_v10.4
Mac_OS_X_v10.4
Mac_OS_X_v10.4_"Tiger"
Mac_OS_X_v10.4_"Tiger"
Mac_OS_X_v10.4_Tiger
Mac_OS_X_v10.5
Mac_OS_X_version_10.2_Jaguar
Mac_OS_X_version_10.3_Panther
Mac_OS_X_version_10.4_Tiger
MAC OS X
#redirect Mac OS X
Mac OS X
Mac OS X is the latest version of the Mac OS, the operating system software for Apple Macintosh computers. Mac OS X was first commercially released in 2001. It consists of two main parts: Apple Darwin, an open source Unix-like environment which is based on the Berkeley Software Distribution source tree and the Mach kernel, adapted and further developed by Apple Computer with involvement from independent developers; and a proprietary Graphical user interface named Aqua (Mac OS X), developed by Apple. Mac OS X Server was also released in 2001. Architecturally identical to the workstation (client) version, it is differentiated by the inclusion of workgroup management and administration software tools, which provide simplified access to key network services, such as a mail transfer agent, a samba software, a LDAP, and a Domain Name System. It also has a different licensing model. ==Naming== The character ''X'' is a Roman numeral and is officially pronounced "ten", continuing the numbering of previous Macintosh operating systems such as Mac OS 8 and Mac OS 9. Some people read it as the letter ''X'' and pronounce it "ex". One reason for this interpretation is the tradition of giving Unix-like operating system names ending with the letter ''x'' (e.g. AIX operating system, IRIX, Linux, Minix, Ultrix, Xenix). Another reason is Apple's tendency to refer to specific versions in print as (for example) "Mac OS X version 10.4". Mac OS X versions are named after large felines. Prior to its release, version 10.0 was code named Mac OS X v10.0 internally at Apple, and version 10.1 was codenamed Mac OS X v10.1. Version 10.2 was named Mac OS X v10.2 in Apple's product marketing, and 10.3 was similarly named Mac OS X v10.3. Version 10.4 has been named Mac OS X v10.4. Mac OS X v10.5 has been announced as the name for the next release of the operating system. Apple has also registered the trademarks Lynx (cat) and Cougar for future use. Apple faced a lawsuit from a computer retailer named TigerDirect regarding its use of the name "Tiger". However, on 16 May 2005 the Florida Federal Court ruled that Apple's use of the name "Tiger" does not infringe upon TigerDirect's trademark. Apple's web site and literature refer to the specific Mac OS X releases in any of four different ways: *''Mac OS X v10.4'', giving the version number of the release. *''Mac OS X Tiger'', giving the name of the release. *''Mac OS X v10.4 "Tiger"'', giving the version number and name. Apple's usage sometimes omits the quotation marks. *"Tiger", simply the name of the release ==History== ''Main article: Mac OS X history'' Despite its branding as simply "version 10" of the Mac OS, it has a history largely independent of the earlier Mac OS releases. It is based on the Mach kernel and the Berkeley Software Distribution implementation of Unix, which were incorporated into NeXTSTEP, the object-oriented operating system developed by Steve Jobs's NeXT company after he was forced from Apple in 1985. Meanwhile, Apple attempted to create a "next generation" operating system of its own (see Taligent and Copland), but with little success. Eventually, NeXT's OS—by then called OpenStep—was selected to form the basis for Apple's next OS, and the company purchased NeXT outright. Jobs was rehired, and later returned to the leadership of the company, shepherding the transformation of the programmer-friendly OPENSTEP into a system that would be welcomed by Apple's primary market of home users and creative professionals, as a project known as Rhapsody (OS). After some missteps which threatened the loyalty of independent developers to Mac OS, and changes of strategy to ease the transition from Mac OS 9 to the new system, Rhapsody evolved into Mac OS X. ==Description== [[Image:Mac OS X Box.jpeg|thumbnail|right|160px|The box for Mac OS X v10.4 "Tiger"]] Mac OS X is a radical departure from previous Macintosh operating systems, as its underlying code base is completely different from previous versions. Although the most significant architectural changes were under the surface, the Aqua GUI was the most striking and visible new feature. The use of soft edges, translucent colors and pinstripes (similar to the hardware of the first iMacs) brought more color and texture to the windows and controls on the Desktop than OS 9's "Platinum" appearance offered, raising a great deal of controversy among users. Many older Macintosh users decried the interface as "toy-like" and lacking in professional polish, while others hailed the new GUI as a revolutionary Apple innovation. The look was instantly recognizable and even before the first version of Mac OS X was released, third-party developers started producing skin (computing) for skinnable applications like Winamp that looked like the Aqua interface. Apple has threatened legal action against people who make or distribute software which provides an interface which they claim is derived from their copyrighted design. This combination of GUI and kernel has recently become the most popular-selling Unix-like environment to date by sheer number of systems shipped. ==Compatibility== Mac OS X retains compatibility with older Mac OS applications by providing an emulation environment called Classic (Mac OS X), which allows users to run Mac OS 9 as a process within Mac OS X, so that most older applications run as they would under the older operating system. In addition, the Carbon (API) APIs for Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X were created to permit code to be written to run natively on both systems. The OpenStep APIs are still available, but Apple now calls the technology Cocoa (API). (This heritage is visible in the Cocoa APIs, in which the class names mostly begin with "NS" for NeXTSTEP.) A fourth option for developers is to write applications in the Java platform, which Mac OS X supports as a "first class citizen" - in practice this means that Java applications fit as neatly into the operating system as possible while still being "cross-platform", and that GUIs, while being written in Swing (Java), look almost exactly like native Cocoa interfaces. Mac OS X can run many BSD or Linux software packages, as long as they have been compiled for the platform. Compiled binaries are normally distributed as Mac OS X packages, but some may require command-line configuration or compilation. Projects such as Fink and DarwinPorts provide precompiled or preformatted packages for many standard packages. Since version 10.3, Mac OS X has included Apple X11, the company's version of the X11 graphical interface for Unix applications, as an optional component during installation. Apple's implementation is based on XFree86 4.3 and X11R6.6, with a window manager which mimics the Mac OS X look, closer integration with Mac OS X, and extensions to use the native Quartz (graphics layer) rendering system and to accelerate OpenGL. Earlier versions of Mac OS X can run X11 applications using XDarwin. For the early releases of Mac OS X, the standard hardware platform supported was the line of Macintosh computers (laptop, desktop, or server) based on PowerPC G3, G4, and G5 processors. Later versions of Mac OS X discontinued support for some older hardware; for example, Panther does not support "beige" G3s, and Tiger does not support systems that pre-date Apple's introduction of FireWire ports. However, free tools such as XPostFacto have enabled installation of Mac OS X on certain older systems not officially supported by Apple, including some pre-G3 systems. The operating system offers the same functionality on all supported hardware, with the exception of fundamental hardware limitations (e.g. CD-ROM drives cannot write to CDs) and performance enhancements possible only with more advanced equipment (e.g. graphics acceleration). On June 6, 2005, Steve Jobs announced in his keynote address at the WWDC that Apple will be switching from PowerPC to Intel processors over the following two years[http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/05/06/06/1752234.shtml?tid=118&tid=179&tid=3], and that Mac OS X will support both platforms during this transition. Support for the PowerPC platform will remain in version 10.5, though it is unclear how long this dual-architecture support will be continued. (Mac OS support for the original Motorola 68k architecture continued for about four years after the introduction of PowerPC systems.) A new version of Xcode supports building "universal binaries" that will run on either architecture. PowerPC binaries will be supported on Intel-based Macs using an emulator called Rosetta (software). Jobs also confirmed rumors that Apple has had versions of Mac OS X running on Intel processors for most of its developmental life. Such crossplatform capability already existed in OS X's lineage -- the predecessor of OS X, OPENSTEP, had been ported to many architectures, including Intel's x86, and a port to x86 of the core operating system of OS X, Apple Darwin, has been available as a free download since OS X was first released. == Notable features == * Uses a subset of the Portable Document Format (PDF) as the basis of its Quartz (graphics layer) imaging model. * Full color, continuously scalable icons (up to 256x256 pixels). * Drop shadow around window and isolated text elements to provide a sense of depth. * Global spell checking and other powerful tools thanks to NeXT-style application services. * Anti-aliasing of widgets, text, graphics and window elements. * New interface elements including sheets (document modal dialog box attached to specific windows) and drawers. * Interweaving windows of different applications (not necessarily adjacent in the visible stacking order). * ColorSync color matching built into the core drawing engine (for print and multimedia professionals). * OpenGL (introduced in version 10.2) composites windows onto the screen to allow hardware accelerated drawing. This technology is called Quartz Compositor. * Exposé (Mac OS X) (introduced in version 10.3) can quickly tile open windows or reveal the desktop. * Pervasive use of Unicode throughout the operating system. * Straightforward architecture for localization of applications and other code, fully separating language dependencies from the core code of a program. * FileVault (introduced in version 10.3) encrypts the user's Home folder with Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) 128-bit keys. * Apple Dashboard (introduced in version 10.4) supports small applications ("Widget_%28computing%29#Dashboard_widgets") that can be called up and dismissed in one keystroke. * Spotlight_%28software%29 search technology (introduced in version 10.4) allows rapid real-time searches of data files, mail messages, photos, and other information, based on item properties and/or content. ==Criticisms== In comparison to Microsoft Windows, some critics point to the lack of ''upgrade pricing'' on Mac OS X; users of previous versions have to pay full price for a new version. This is in part a semantic argument, depending on whether a retail Mac OS X package is considered an "upgrade" or not. On one hand, it can only be used on a Mac, all of which were sold with some version of the Mac OS, so it is arguably an upgrade. On the other hand, no price distinction is made between upgrading version 9.0 or version 10.3 to version 10.4, suggesting that consumers are buying a full license in either case, or at least receiving no credit for intervening upgrades. Furthermore, customers who purchase a Macintosh between the time a new version of Mac OS X is announced and the time it starts shipping preinstalled on new machines have typically been given upgrades at a much smaller cost (US$9.95-19.95). Meanwhile, the ''upgrade price'' for Windows varies substantially depending on volume purchase agreements, Home vs. Pro editions, etc. making direct comparisons difficult. In some cases, the upgrade price for Windows exceeds that of Mac OS X, suggesting that this criticism is moot. 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 US$110,000 upper limit on the cost of certification for one company. ==Versions== Internally, Apple uses a "build number" to identify each development version of Mac OS X. There may be many development versions each week. Under Apple's guidelines, the first development version of a product starts with build 1A1. Minor revisions to that are 1A2, 1A3, 1A4, and so on; the first major development revision becomes 1B1 (and minor revisions to that would be 1B2, 1B3, etc.), the next major revision would be 1C1, and so forth. The next major revision after the last 1_ series would be 2A, followed by 2B. The transition from one letter to the next occurs with changes in the minor release number. For instance, the first build of Panther (10.3) was 7A1. The first public release was 7B85; the last, 10.3.9, was 7W98. But the next build of OS X was 10.4, 8A1. When a build is chosen as the next public release of Mac OS X, it is given a public version number. Build 4K78 was chosen to be Mac OS X version 10.0, build 5G64 became 10.1, build 6C115 became 10.2, build 7B85 became 10.3, and build 8A428 became 10.4. The current version of Mac OS X is version 10.4.1 (released on May 16, 2005). === Mac OS X v10.0 (Cheetah) === On March 24, 2001, Apple released Mac OS X v10.0 (codenamed Cheetah). It was praised for its completeness and stability at such an early point in its development (it being a total departure from previous Apple releases). Despite this, it was criticized for being slow, leading many (including Steve Jobs) to consider it merely a very good "Development_stage#Beta" release. === Mac OS X v10.1 (Puma) === Later that year on September 25, 2001, Mac OS X v10.1 (codenamed Puma) was released, increasing the performance of the system as well as providing missing features, such as DVD playback. Because of the poor reputation of 10.0, Apple released 10.1 as a free upgrade CD for 10.0 users, in addition to the US$129 boxed version for people running only Mac OS. This brought Apple much embarrassment when it was discovered that the upgrade CDs were actually full install CDs that could be used with Mac OS systems by removing a specific file; Apple subsequently rereleased the CDs in an actual stripped-down format that didn't facilitate installation on such systems. ===Mac OS X v10.2 "Jaguar"=== On August 24, 2002, Apple followed up with Mac OS X v10.2 "Jaguar" (the first release to publicly bear its cat name), which brought profound performance enhancements, a newer, sleeker look, and many powerful enhancements (over 150, according to Apple), among them: *Increased support for Microsoft Windows networks *Quartz Compositor for compositing graphics directly on the video card *An adaptive spamming mail filter, based on latent semantic indexing *A system-wide repository for contact information in the new Apple Address Book *Bonjour (protocol) networking (Apple's implementation of Zeroconf; renamed to Bonjour in 10.4) *iChat: an Apple-branded, officially-supported third party AOL Instant Messenger client *A revamped Finder (Mac OS) with searching built directly into every window *Dozens of new Apple Universal Access features *Sherlock 3: Web services (See Karelia Watson) *CUPS: The Common Unix Printing System allowed the use of GIMP-print drivers, hpijs drivers etc. for "unsupported" printers. It also allowed - with some user recompilation - printing to serial printers. Mac OS X v10.2 was never officially referred to as Jaguar in the United Kingdom due to an agreement with the automobile manufacturer Jaguar (car), although boxes and CDs still bore the Jaguar-skin logo. ===Mac OS X v10.3 "Panther"=== Mac OS X v10.3 "Panther" was released on October 24, 2003. In addition to providing much improved performance, it also incorporated the most extensive update yet to the user interface. The update included as many or more new features as Jaguar the year before. On the other hand, support for some older "beige era" G3 computers was discontinued. New features of "Panther" include: *Updated Finder, incorporating a brushed-metal interface and fast-searching *Exposé (Mac OS X): a new system to manipulate windows *Fast User Switching: allows a user to remain logged in while another user logs in *iChat AV which added Video teleconference features to iChat *Improved Portable Document Format rendering to allow for extremely fast PDF viewing *Built-in faxing support *Much greater Microsoft Windows interoperability *FileVault: on the fly encryption and decryption of a user's home folder *Increased speed across the entire system with more support for the PowerPC G5 ===Mac OS X v10.4 "Tiger"=== Mac OS X v10.4 "Tiger" was released on April 29, 2005. Apple stated that Tiger contains more than 200 new features, but as with the release of Panther, certain older machines have been dropped from the list of supported hardware; Tiger requires FireWire. Among the new features of "Tiger": *Spotlight (software): A fast content and metadata-based file search tool, which quickly finds items containing the key words you search for. *Apple Dashboard: widget (computing) for common tasks available on a desktop overlay just a click away. *iChat: A new version supports the H.264 video codec for conferencing and allows for multi-party audio and video chats. *QuickTime 7: the new version includes H.264 support and a completely re-written interface. *Apple Safari 2: this new version of the system's default web browser includes the ability to view RSS feeds directly in the browser, among other new features. *Automator (software): automates repetitive tasks without programming. *Core Image and Core Video: allows additional effects in video and image editing to be performed in real time. *64-bit memory support for the new PowerPC G5, using the LP64 system. *Updated Unix utilities, such as cp (Unix) and rsync, that can preserve HFS Plus metadata and resource forks. *An extended permissions system using access control lists. ===Mac OS X v10.5 "Leopard"=== Mac OS X v10.5 "Leopard" was announced at the Worldwide Developers Conference on June 6, 2005, due to be released at the end of 2006 or early 2007. Apple has said that it will support both PowerPC- and Intel- based Macintosh computers. ==See also== * Comparison of operating systems * Comparison of operating systems (security) * List of Macintosh software * PearPC - Windows/Linux-based emulator capable of running Mac OS X ==External links== *[http://www.apple.com/macosx/ Apple: Mac OS X] — Official page *[http://www.kernelthread.com/mac/osx/ What is OS X? (kernelthread.com)] — A balanced, accessible overview of the Mac OS X operating system *[http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/free_issues/issue_01/osx_jungle Mac OS X: Welcome to the jungle] — A look inside the Mac OS X software ecology (Free Software Magazine, March 2005) *[http://www.xvsxp.com/] — A comprehensive look at OS X and Windows XP Apple software Mac OS X Mach Windowing systems BSD th:แมคโอเอสเท็น
Mac OS X
''This is a selected entry on Template:March 24 selected anniversaries (may be in HTML comment)'' Older discussions from this page have been moved to Talk:Mac OS X/Archive =='v' in Mac OS X version names== The proper names of the Mac OS X operating system releases have "v" in them, like "Mac OS X v10.0". Apple uses "v10.0" on its web site and in its documentation. Calling it "Mac OS X 10.0" is incorrect. The "X" stands for "10", so "X 10.0" would be redundant. For an example of Apple's use, see [http://www.apple.com/macosx/]. Please don't rename the Mac OS X release articles to names that aren't correct. - User:Brian Kendig 03:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Interface Article name standardization == Can we standardize the article names for the various interfaces? Right now we have: * Quartz (graphics layer) * Platinum (Macintosh) * Aqua (Mac OS X) * Carbon (computing) * Cocoa (software) It's frustrating, because when I'm writing articles on OS X, I have to look up the individual article to make sure that I'm linking to it correctly. Can we rename all these something standard, like Quartz (interface) or something similar? Is there a WikiProject that handles these kind of conventions already? --User:DropDeadGorgias User_talk:DropDeadGorgias 17:32, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) : How about the following since Quartz, Aqua and Cocoa only relate to Mac OS X? Maybe even just Macintosh in brackets after all of them, since they are all to do with the Macintosh platform in one way or another. :* Quartz (Mac OS X) :* Platinum (Macintosh) :* Aqua (Mac OS X) :* Carbon (Macintosh) :* Cocoa (Mac OS X) : User:AlistairMcMillan 18:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::This is almost as inconsistent! The problem is knowing which form an article title takes when writing another article containing a link - you'd still need to know enough about the various technologies to decide which one to pick, or else open another browser and look it up while you're editing (which I find a bit irritating, but what can you do?). How about just suffixing every Mac article with (Mac). That way we always know what form it takes, it's almost certainly not going to clash with any unrelated article title, and it helps to keep the topics together. Personally I don't see a need in a general encyclopedia like this to have to make a distinction between classic Macs and OS X, etc - we are not attempting to be a developer resource or anything. User:GRAHAMUK 00:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::The standing principle is to use the most general disambiguation terms possible. If there's only one noteworthy person named Joe Smith in the world, you entitle it "Joe Smith". If there are two, and one writes science-fiction novels, and the other plays hockey for the Boise Brawlers, you disambiguate them as "Joe Smith (writer)" and "Joe Smith (athlete)". You only resort to "Joe Smith (science-fiction novelist)" if there's also a famous Joe Smith who writes westerns and one who writes sci-fi screenplays. So unless there are other instances of "Aqua" in the realm of computing which require disambiguation from the Mac OS X GUI, "Aqua (computing)" or maybe "Aqua (software)" would be most appropriate. User:Tverbeek 01:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::I agree, all of the articles should be Quartz (computing} because that is the most general thing we can do, and still keep the category clear. Only in the rare cirumstance of there being multiple meanings of the same word (like if there was a program named Quartz) should be resort to somthing different. Standarization ''is'' important, and this would be the way to do it. --User:Ctachme 02:00, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::: Uhm... http://www.opensymphony.com/quartz/ :) User:AlistairMcMillan 14:35, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::::Good point. I'm inclined to go with Alistair's suggestions, with the system names in the title. --User:DropDeadGorgias User_talk:DropDeadGorgias 20:17, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC) ::::::: That was just an example. Because of that you still wouldn't want to do Quartz (Mac) because it is still not specific. What if this Quartz thing linked to worked on a Mac? No, I still think it would be best be as general as possible. --User:Ctachme 02:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::: ''"you'd still need to know enough about the various technologies to decide which one to pick, or else open another browser and look it up while you're editing"'' Two things. First of all I think we'd all hope that editors who are writing about something would "know enough" before hitting the Edit link and second with the fluid nature of Wikipedia you pretty much have to check every link you create anyway. Just look at the pages for the various OS X versions, in the last week they moved three or four times, who knows where they'll be next week. User:AlistairMcMillan 01:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::Ctachme, what interface names do you suggest then? Keep in mind that naming conventions state that disambiguation names are supposed to be as general as possible without possible ambiguity with other topics. I personally think that Alistair's suggestions fit those criteria, but if you have a better suggestion I'm open to it. --User:DropDeadGorgias User_talk:DropDeadGorgias 13:21, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC) :::::We should do exactly what it says: if there are no other like-named computing articles you use Somthing (computing), if there are, but are no like-named software articles then you do Somthing (software), and you get more specific until you have eliminated any like named aricles... why arbitratilly set it at Somthing (Mac OS X), when it's just as possible that there be another thing in Mac OS X that applies (like if there was a software program named Quartz that runs on Mac OS X). For these few examples I would do: :::::* Quartz (technology) (if there was a more specific article for any of this, like [http://www.opensymphony.com/quartz/], then you should make the category more specific if needed) :::::* Platinum (technology) :::::* Aqua (technology) :::::* Carbon (technology) :::::* Cocoa (programming enviornment) (Cocoa (Mac OS X) shouldn't be used because CoCoA System runs on Mac OS X) :::::I would also suggest that the software articles like Apple Mail be changed to Mail (Apple software) since the name of the application is NOT "Apple Mail" it's simply Mail. --User:Ctachme 20:01, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) I know the comparison isn't exactly perfect, but I don't see why we have to be so vague. If there were a great number of people name Jean-Luc Picard, you wouldn't do Jean-Luc Picard (television character), you would do Jean-Luc Picard (Star Trek). Isn't the idea behind the "standing principle" you mentioned, to make sure you don't exclude anything, Our Platinum article, is directly related to the Mac OS. Our Quartz article, is directly related to Mac OS X. We are not excluding other things that it might apply to, by being exact. Aside from that, I agree and quite like the Mail (Apple software) idea. Looks a lot better than the current name. Also XCode and Project Builder are programming environments, Cocoa and Carbon are APIs and we don't have to worry about conflicts with CoCoA because it is destinguished by its capitals alone. IMHO. User:AlistairMcMillan 20:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) :How about: :* Quartz (graphics layer) :* Platinum (Macintosh) :* Aqua (Mac OS X) :* Carbon (computing) :* Cocoa (software) :or some such thing, with appropriate redirects and links from disambiguation pages? :User:MFNickster 23:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) :: I don't mean to be picky but... WebKit is a Framework, Cocoa is a great big number of Frameworks and Quartz Imaging is a corporation that has nothing to do with Apple. User:AlistairMcMillan 19:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::Sure, that's why I said "something ''like'' this."
Mac OS X
Mac OS X is Apple Computer's Berkeley Software Distribution Unix-based operating system. BSDMac OS
Mac os x
#REDIRECT Mac OS X
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
M
MA | MB | MC | MD | ME | MF | MG | MH | MI | MJ | MK | ML | MN | MO | MP | MR | MS | MT | MU | MW | MX | MY | MZ |Words begining with Mac_OS_X:
Mac_OS-X
MAC_OS_X
Mac_OS_X
Mac_OS_X
Mac_OS_X
Mac_os_x
Mac_OS_X.4
Mac_OS_X/Archive
Mac_OS_X/Carbon
Mac_OS_X/Classic
Mac_OS_X/Cocoa
Mac_OS_X/Cocoa
Mac_OS_XI
Mac_OS_X_10
Mac_OS_X_10.0
Mac_OS_X_10.0
Mac_OS_X_10.1
Mac_OS_X_10.2
Mac_OS_X_10.2
Mac_OS_X_10.2_Jaguar
Mac_OS_X_10.3
Mac_OS_X_10.3_Panther
Mac_OS_X_10.4
Mac_OS_X_10.4
Mac_os_x_10.4
Mac_OS_X_10.4_"Tiger"
Mac_OS_X_10.4_Tiger
Mac_os_x_10.4_tiger
Mac_OS_X_10.5
Mac_OS_X_Box.jpeg
Mac_OS_X_history
Mac_OS_X_history
Mac_OS_X_Leopard
Mac_os_x_leopard
Mac_OS_X_Panther
Mac_OS_X_Public_Beta
Mac_OS_X_Server
Mac_OS_X_Server_1.0
Mac_os_x_software
Mac_OS_X_stubs
Mac_OS_X_Tiger
Mac_os_x_tiger
Mac_OS_X_v10.0
Mac_OS_X_v10.0
Mac_OS_X_v10.1
Mac_OS_X_v10.2
Mac_OS_X_v10.2
Mac_OS_X_v10.2_"Jaguar"
Mac_OS_X_v10.2_"Jaguar"
Mac_OS_X_v10.3
Mac_OS_X_v10.3
Mac_OS_X_v10.3_"Panther"
Mac_OS_X_v10.3_"Panther"
Mac_OS_X_v10.4
Mac_OS_X_v10.4
Mac_OS_X_v10.4_"Tiger"
Mac_OS_X_v10.4_"Tiger"
Mac_OS_X_v10.4_Tiger
Mac_OS_X_v10.5
Mac_OS_X_version_10.2_Jaguar
Mac_OS_X_version_10.3_Panther
Mac_OS_X_version_10.4_Tiger
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
