Talk:Mac OS X Snow Leopard/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Release Date

Can someone change the release date of mac osx 10.6 [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.38.182 (talk) 06:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Just OS X

The new name of Mac OS X is just OS X! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.134.58.126 (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Apple calls it "Mac OS X Snow Leopard," obviously retaining the word "Mac." See their Snow Leopard page. Trollaxor (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

mac

wow all the changes in 5 minutes - cptimes
Gotta love wikipedia ;) Pity nothing much was announced. Ripdog2121 (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

We are still waiting for a session after lunch. BJTalk 20:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Apple creates Snow Leopard Page

http://www.apple.com/macosx/snowleopard/

So it's official with all the Quicktime X, 64-bit data etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.80.242.28 (talk) 08:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Apple PR deleted

Apple has just deleted the Snow Leopard PR. It was there, believe me. [2] ☆ CieloEstrellado 20:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Here it is:

"SAN FRANCISCO—June 9, 2008—Apple® today previewed Mac OS® X Snow Leopard, which builds on the incredible success of OS X Leopard and is the next major version of the world’s most advanced operating system. Rather than focusing primarily on new features, Snow Leopard will enhance the performance of OS X, set a new standard for quality and lay the foundation for future OS X innovation. Snow Leopard is optimized for multi-core processors, taps into the vast computing power of graphic processing units (GPUs), enables breakthrough amounts of RAM and features a new, modern media platform with QuickTime® X. Snow Leopard includes out-of-the-box support for Microsoft Exchange 2007 and is scheduled to ship in about a year.
“We have delivered more than a thousand new features to OS X in just seven years and Snow Leopard lays the foundation for thousands more,” said Bertrand Serlet, Apple’s senior vice president of Software Engineering. “In our continued effort to deliver the best user experience, we hit the pause button on new features to focus on perfecting the world’s most advanced operating system.”
Snow Leopard delivers unrivaled support for multi-core processors with a new technology code-named “Grand Central,” making it easy for developers to create programs that take full advantage of the power of multi-core Macs. Snow Leopard further extends support for modern hardware with Open Computing Language (OpenCL), which lets any application tap into the vast gigaflops of GPU computing power previously available only to graphics applications. OpenCL is based on the C programming language and has been proposed as an open standard. Furthering OS X’s lead in 64-bit technology, Snow Leopard raises the software limit on system memory up to a theoretical 16TB of RAM.
Using media technology pioneered in OS X iPhone™, Snow Leopard introduces QuickTime X, which optimizes support for modern audio and video formats resulting in extremely efficient media playback. Snow Leopard also includes Safari® with the fastest implementation of JavaScript ever, increasing performance by 53 percent, making Web 2.0 applications feel more responsive.*
For the first time, OS X includes native support for Microsoft Exchange 2007 in OS X applications Mail, iCal® and Address Book, making it even easier to integrate Macs into organizations of any size."


Was it ever mentioned that this was going to be called 10.6? It's a weird release, so there's a possibility it won't be called 10.6 --74.34.67.111 (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

User 74.34.67.111 is right -- There is no official indication that this will be Mac OS X 10.6. Apple's information has gone to great lengths to avoid using a version number designation. The article should reflect that. Perhaps by indicating that 10.6 is the analyst community's presumptive designation with links to some analysts but that it isn't yet official. Mattisgoo (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I have edited the first sentence to do exactly what I said. Provided reference to InformationWeek news story which reflects that everyone presumes 10.6 to be the designation. Mattisgoo (talk) 02:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Press Release

This article should probably summarize rather than quote the entire press release. Parts of it (e.g. "Furthering OS X’s lead in 64-bit technology") are definitely not WP:NPOV. JCDenton2052 (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed but I'm not going to touch it until more info comes out so an actual article can be written. BJTalk 23:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Promotional Tone?

Someone has tagged the article as sounding like it's written in a promotional tone. The article has only existed for about 24 hours. The only info on Snow Leopard is from Apple. I think in the coming days there will be more info and analysis coming out, which will enable the article to carry information that is not just from Apple.--Lester 02:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not the problem. The problem is that the article is almost entirely a direct copy & paste from Apple's web site. If this isn't fixed within the next day, I'm going to delete all the content as it is a copyright violation. -/- Warren 04:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
That seems rather harsh. This was just announced by Apple and not much information is known, but as time goes on more info will come out and the article can be expanded, but this is a real product as of right now and is worthy of having a dedicated page. 68.46.238.32 (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Mac OS X Snow Leopard Server

I added a link to the Snow Leopard Server page on Apple.com. 68.46.238.32 (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result of the proposal to move this article to Mac OS X Snow Leopard is No Consensus to Move. EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


As there is no official mention yet that this will be dubbed "10.6," I believe that the page title should be changed to Mac OS X Snow Leopard. Titling it Mac OS X v10.6 is unencyclopedic, as it may lead people to believe that Apple has actually dubbed it that. Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 17:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Support, we all know that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The current title is simply unsupported conjecture right now. — confusionball (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Reliable sources have announced it as Mac OS X 10.6 "Snow Leopard". BJTalk 18:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above, as well Apple themselves call it 10.6 (developer release screen shots posted by reliable sources clearly show it as 10.6). Nja247 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Wikipedia is also fact-based. I note both Opposes above don't cite their facts/images. If there are images (that break the WWDC NDA) then cite them so we can all see them. Otherwise it's just speculation or original research (which isn't enough) Kevin Purcell (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose For the reasons above, and the fact that Apple itself refers to it as the next major version (the middle number for OS X is the version number). PaleAqua (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Removing my opposition for now as I can see a little of Warren's point in the #Article name dicussion. PaleAqua (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Support actually the more I think about it I have to support based on Warren's points. The question is not if it is version 10.6 but if that is the name. PaleAqua (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, "facts" above have not been cited. "Reliable sources" calling it 10.6 is not the same as reliable sources knowing that Apple has versioned it 10.6. Iheartwiki19 (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Apple are deliberately avoiding calling it 10.6 in public. Even if a few slip ups occur. This indicates either a desire to change the branding strategy or they haven't decided to make it 10.6 or 10.5.8 (or whatever). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattisgoo (talk • contribs) 02:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • You mean like here? Apple is just being Apple. BJTalk 03:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I do not call naming the OS 10.6 in the actual build itself as deliberately avoiding it. Leopard was known as Leopard, but in the end it had to have a version and that was 10.5, just as Snow Leopard is 10.6. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose All other articles for OS X are labeled in this way, and it is certain that Snow Leopard is 10.6. Steve Jobs referred to it as the next generation, screenshots show it to be 10.6, etc. There is no reason to believe it is not. As it is Intel-only, i ill not be a Leopard point release, as then everyone with a PowerPC machine would have no OS. This is definitely the next major release, and it is not major enough to breask from the v.10 name scheme. --Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 03:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • And apart from TUAW, Engadget and other rumour sites, what makes you believe it's Intel-only? And on the topic of odd version numbers, what happened to QuickTime 8 and 9?—[semicolons]— 09:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
    • This is one of the things running through my mine when I originally opposed, now I'm wondering if it should be reversed. Especially for Tiger and Leopard. PaleAqua (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
    • No, its much easier to order them if they are named 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, etc. then Puma, Cheetah, Jaguar, etc. --Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 18:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
We've managed it with the Microsoft Windows articles just fine, despite its naming scheme having changed twice in its history. -/- Warren 18:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but Microsoft does not use version numbers EVER when discussing products, except to developers. Apple uses 10.5 and Leopard, for instance, interchangeably, and the 10.5 name scheme is a lot easier to logically order and understand.--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 19:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The developer preview screenshots name it as 10.6, all the other Mac OS X pages are titled this way, Mac OS X v10.6 is the way to go. Mvjs (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
    • What "developer screenshots"? (No, I really want to know.) The one in the article is from Flickr, and the only indication that it is really Snow Leopard is the version number, which can easily be changed by altering a strings file (/System/Library/CoreServices/loginwindow.app/Contents/Resources/English.lproj/AboutThisMac.strings, line 21) and could also be Photoshopped. I am highly suspicious of the screenshot given because a) Apple wouldn't preview Snow Leopard on their cheapest Mac mini and b) Apple has not yet seeded Snow Leopard to developers. oops, my mistake.—[semicolons]— 09:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
      • It is ridiculous if you believe someone is making this all up and photoshopping things. Apple described it as the next major OS X release (aka 10.6), and further the dev release clearly is 10.6 I can assure you. I understand your comments, but do not understand the conspiracy theory when it really is 10.6. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I'd still rather have a screenshot from someone who is willing to take credit for it. I realise now that Photoshop is extremely unlikely, but it could easily be someone messing with their Mac mini. If someone will take credit for it, I think it will make it a great deal less suspicious. Anyway, it looks like the move isn't going to happen anyway (after all, we'd just have to move it back…☺), but I would be happier if we had a more verifiable source for the image. —[semicolons]— 15:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
        • On a completely unrelated note about the screenshot, how come it doesn't have the startup disk in the about window? I'd like to get rid of it myself. —[semicolons]— 16:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article name

As you can see, I have renamed the article to Mac OS X Snow Leopard. Apple has never referred to this release as "v10.6", and we shouldn't be naming articles based on speculation from news sources. Apple calls it "Mac OS X Snow Leopard" on their web site, therefore this is the only correct name.

Furthermore, on http://www.apple.com/macosx/snowleopard/, you will notice on the navigation box at the bottom of the page, they have actually put the "Snow Leopard" page as a sub-page of their "Leopard" section. They've also gone ahead and used all their branding and graphic design for the page. This may actually point towards "Snow Leopard" as being a kind of "second edition" of Leopard, rather than something entirely new. Who knows at this point... -/- Warren 20:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Even after it was opposed you went ahead and did it anyhow? You say who knows, and that Apple didn't call it 10.6, but there are screenshots clearly showing "Snow Leopard" called 10.6 - NOT "Snow Leopard" or anything else.
They always have and apparently will continue to use a version number for their OS, and it appears it's going to be 10.6 (from the About OS X box itself in the OS), and thus should be changed back awaiting further discussion and consensus. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course Apple will use a version number. It may even be 10.6. but unless you can cite a source for this (not original research) it shouldn't be in WP especially as a page name. And as Apple has NDAed WWDC and hasn't put it on the Apple site then it's speculation that Snow Leopard is 10.6. What is clear though is the Snow Leopard is citable as the codename. That's good enough for a page name. I suspect the name will change in the future. But for now this is good enough Kevin Purcell (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Yea, there's a image link given above. You need to actually read my comment closely and you'll find it, and the image clearly shows it as 10.6. What did you expect, OS X 10.5 SP 2, Snow Leopard Edition? What is good enough for you doesn't make it right. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The image link shows very little, Nja247. It's unclear where the screenshot came from and that it's not doctored/created. I agree with Warren that there has been no reference from Apple to the version number, and version numbering is something controlled by a software manufacturing--if a software manufacturer has not version numbered something yet, then it doesn't make sense to imagine how the company may number the software. Iheartwiki19 (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You're joking I hope. Yea, it's a big conspiracy and photoshop'ed to be 10.6 in the picture. The next major version of OS X (Apple's words) will NOT go in the order they've went in, but will be called OS X Snow Leopard Ultimate, they may even have a Home Premium Edition. It will be 10.6, and saying otherwise is a disservice to the image of Wikipedia, but whatever. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:PROVEIT#Burden_of_evidence: "It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." -- Jimmy Wales. Please cite a reliable ource for Snow Leopard being version 10.6 of Mac OS X. A picture you found on imageshack is not sufficient to do so. I never said it was a conspiracy but it is INCREDIBLY easy to change the 5 to a 6 in a screenshot, and the Apple ecosystem of products is notorious for fake product shots, etc. Further, if that screenshot IS legitimate then it should be linked to in the context of who obtained it (e.g. a news source). Iheartwiki19 (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Nja247, produce a single reliable source for "10.6". No guesswork by journalists. No screenshots from unofficial sources -- I could doctor up an image to say 10.7 in less than ten minutes if I so chose. No "well the current version is 5, therefore the next version must be 6" original research nonsense. Produce reliable sources, or don't touch the edit button. For the time being, Apple calls it "Mac OS X Snow Leopard", therefore it is the only correct name. -/- Warren 22:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
"guesswork by journalists" So, do you know their sources are you guessing that they are guessing? I'd love to see the "it's on Apple.com or isn't true" policy that we seem to be following. BJTalk 00:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Gladly: WP:NOR.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Does WP:OR not say we need sources. Or WP:V say we need multiple sources Or how about WP:RS saying we need reliable sources? So all these journalists are merely guessing? None of them have sources? How about the development builds that have been seeded to every single Apple Developer Connection member? Or the CDs that were given out to every single person at Worldwide Developers Conference? I get that we don't trust screenshots from single sources, they could be doctored. But how about multiple (WP:V) screenshots taken independently by multiple reliable sources (WP:RS? Sources: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] BJTalk 01:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
We're left in a bind then: Apple's website doesn't officially acknowledge 10.6 status, but the software updates do. I think it would be best if we described the situation in the article.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
A perfect solution. BJTalk 01:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
" every single Apple Developer Connection member"
Every single one? I've never known Apple to give away developer builds of software for free. Not for a long time anyway. If you're right and I'm just confused, where can it be found and how is Apple distributing it? If by download, how big is it?—[semicolons]— 16:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I think BJ means every single Select, Premier or Student ADC member. Basically every paying ADC member. They all have access to dev seeds. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Warren, you're a boob if you think there's a conspiracy to photoshop screenshots. It's 10.6, get over it. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"Get over it" isn't an answer. You have to get Apple to say, in a press release, or on their web site, that it's called "Mac OS X v10.6". This has nothing to do with conspiracy theories -- Apple is the only organization that claims the right to name their operating system... everything they have said thus far is "Mac OS X Snow Leopard". At no point has "Mac OS X v10.6" appeared in their literature or presentations on the subject. Arguing that this article should be named "Mac OS X v10.6" would be like arguing that Windows Server 2008 should be named Windows NT 6.0.6001 because that's the official version string. I'm not arguing that OS X Snow Leopard doesn't carry a version number of 10.6 -- obviously it is based on what people at WWDC have said -- I'm arguing the name of this article is wrong based on a lack of reliable sources stating that that is the name of the operating system. -/- Warren 04:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I was going to respond with something along the lines of Apple not using 10.5 when announcing Leopard, but I'm now wondering if some of the earlier OS version pages should also be named with their cat. Especially Leopard and Tiger. PaleAqua (talk) 17:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
How would that make ANY sense? You suggest that 10.0 through 10.3 retain the 10.x name scheme, and then we suddenly switch to the "big cat" scheme for 10.4-10.6? Why? If you are using the logic that we should use the name that Apple used most often to market the product, then we would have to keep 10.0 and 10.1 as is, and rename 10.2-10.6 Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard and Snow Leopard. That's not confusing at all. :/. --Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 19:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
This happens all the time, it started out as the big cats were a code name, people liked them so much they are now used as the main marketing name. Regardless Leopard is still 10.5 Leopard. BJTalk 19:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but that still provides no grounds for changing 10.4-10.6 ONLY to big cat names.--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 19:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Right, they should all be left as they are. BJTalk 19:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
And it's not confusing that the article names are version numbers when they are mostly referred by their big cat names? Regardless of which article naming scheme is used, it is fairly certain that redirects will point from one name to the other. I fail to see how naming the article after the marketing / brand name makes anything more difficult. Personally I would have preferred it if I could have supported the version number option, but it seems silly and outside Wikipedia's scope to try to impose order. Yes it is almost certain Snow Leopard is 10.6 and but the official name of 10.6 is Snow Leopard. I am sort of surprised that WP:NAME does not seem to cover software, brand, and code names. PaleAqua (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Apple calls it Mac OS X Snow Leopard. Why don't we?

No, seriously, people. Why not?

I don't want to hear some bullshit about how our other OS X articles are named, and that we should continue to follow that pattern. If you really believe that this article should be named "Mac OS X v10.6", then state here, for the record, that you also believe that articles like Windows 95 should be named Windows 4.0, even though Microsoft's marketing materials and physical imprints of the software's name clearly states "Windows 95". The version string or "About box" contents is not relevant to Wikipedia naming; we have plenty of Apple-sourced references stating that every prior OS release has a name like "Mac OS X v10.5" -- you don't have to look any further than http://www.apple.com/support/leopard/ for a clear indication of that. We don't have this clarity or confirmation for Snow Leopard being "Mac OS X v10.6", though.

When it comes to article naming, we are supposed to follow what's prescribed in the Manual of Style and in the Wikipedia:Naming conflict guideline. The NCON guideline proposes using the WP:GOOGLE test. So, yes, let's do that: "mac os x v10.6" produces about 4,000 hits. "mac os x snow leopard" produces 1,500,000. It's really important to note that "Mac OS X v10.6" is never actually used by Apple as a name. Only "Mac OS X Snow Leopard" is.

Someone's going to have to produce a particularly brilliant interpretation of WP:IAR to justify breaking with the WP:MOS and WP:NCON guidelines and retaining an article name of "Mac OS X v10.6", in spite of the weight of evidence that this isn't the operating system's official name. Assumptions aren't acceptable because, by policy, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a crystal ball -- we don't know if Apple will adopt "Mac OS X v10.6" as an official name; all we know is that they haven't yet. Warren -talk- 00:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Both your Windows comparison and Google test results are flawed. Microsoft keeps internal kernel version numbers, internal code names and the public name. Apple uses internal kernel version numbers, public code names and public version number. The people in support of using 10.6 are simply saying we should use the public version number in addition to the public codename. We aren't using their internal kernel version number (which I'm guessing will be be Darwin 10) as you are suggesting with the Windows 95 article.
Your Google test is flawed because you are using the full article names, which nobody uses. "os x snow leopard" returns 1,960,000 results and "os x 10.6" returns 3,480,000 results. BJTalk 01:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
As of now, Snow Leopard doesn't have a public version number. Windows' version number isn't just for the kernel. - Josh (talk | contribs) 02:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course does. We all know Snow Leopard is going to be named 10.6, we are just arguing over the technicalities of policy and interim naming. BJTalk 03:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
As long as redirects are in place, why exactly does this matter?--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 04:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't but people insist on move warring the article. I'm not going to touch it and I don't really care if it gets moved. BJTalk 05:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually what we know is that it will be versioned 10.6. Apple has been moving away from using version numbers for names, look at all the Mac OS X Leopard pages under http://www.apple.com/macosx/, there is no real mention of the version 10.5 except in a footnote about a particular dot release on one page [20] and the navigational box at the bottom of the page (you can see it at the same page). If this is the case for Leopard now it seems like it will be more so for Snow Leopard, especially since they don't mention the 10.6 version on the snow leopard page. Note as a counter point that support pages [21] include the 10.5. While I agree as long the pages redirect to each other it should be okay. But what about using Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard, Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard and the like as a names with redirects for both the cat and version names? That way the name is in the title of the article regardless of which is the truer name. PaleAqua (talk) 17:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
The term "Mac OS X 10.6" is the product of the enormous media echo chamber surrounding Apple. That precise, exact phrase doesn't actually appear anywhere on Apple's web site, save for mailing lists. It's really just a concatenation of the name of the operating system and its version number, but not a marketing name. "Mac OS X 10.5" results in far more hits than "Mac OS X v10.5" and "Mac OS X Leopard" put together, and appears in Apple's technical support documentation, but "Mac OS X 10.5" isn't the official marketing name, which is clear from looking at their web site.
WP:NCON has a set of guidelines governing how we choose names, which includes:
  • "Is it the official current name of the subject?" -- in our case, yes, because Apple officially calls this version of OS X "Mac OS X Snow Leopard" (and "Mac OS X Server Snow Leopard"). It says this on the web site, and on the discs distributed at WWDC (see here, for example), and it's the name that Steve Jobs used in his presentation (he never said "ten point six"), and it's the name that appears in the press release. You can't get more official than that.
  • "Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves?" -- in our case, it's slightly more tricky here, because the "About this Mac" dialog box says "Mac OS X", then underneath, "Version 10.6". There is a fair argument here to say that this is the "real" name of the operating system, in terms of self-identification, but, if you were to look at the equivalent dialog box on Windows Server 2008, it actually says "Microsoft Windows Server", and then on the next line, "Version 6.0 (Build 6001: Service Pack 1)". Mac OS X Leopard says "Mac OS X" on the first line, then underneath, "Version 10.5.3". In all these cases, that second line is a version identification string, not the name of the operating system.
  • Do not invent names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names. -- this is why we can't use "Mac OS X v10.6" as the name of the operating system, or "Mac OS X 10.6". These are names that were invented by journalists and bloggers, and perhaps reinforced in the media because of the name of this Wikipedia article; but it has never been used by Apple.
The argument of, "oh, what does it matter, we have redirects?" doesn't address the issue at all; we still have to choose the authoritative name, and there's only one valid name for it right now -- "Mac OS X Snow Leopard". Warren -talk- 07:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone seems a bit bent with pushing their interpretation of the 'rules', which are guidelines anyhow in these circumstances. The only rules which are literal deal with defamation, obscenity, etc. Step away from it and give it a rest for a few days. Things are currently redirected no matter what's typed in so what's the continued issue? And technically, when Apple designed the dev release and called it 10.6 they, well, called it 10.6, so things are correct here already using both names. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You say they called it "10.6", but they printed "Mac OS X Snow Leopard" on the packaging, and on their web site, and in their presentations. The only place the "10.6" appears is in various dialog boxes. Wikipedia has always chosen marketing names over version strings when it comes to naming software -- if you don't like this interpretation, go rename Windows Vista to Windows NT 6.0] and see how long that sticks.
I realise that you're disagreeing with this only because you don't like me -- you really shouldn't let that interfere with doing the right thing here, which is to follow the established pattern we've been using across the encyclopedia -- use the marketing name, not the version string. Warren -talk- 06:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Accusing me, or anyone of bias due to a self-perceived dislike for you is as ridiculous. I have no issues with you personally, and saying otherwise is quite odd, as I do not take Wikipedia personally. I almost shouldn't have to respond to such odd ball comments, but I want to make it clear you're incorrect and I've never said anything to the contrary.
Secondly, I wish to make it clear that I disagree with you because I think you're wrong, not for any other made up reasons. The product isn't released so there is no "packaging" of which you speak of, and fact is Apple made it clear to call it 10.6 in the OS itself. Lastly, I do not care much about how Microsoft markets its products. Both names are included as of now (10.6 - the actual OS and Snow Leopard - pre-marketing naming), so as it stands it works and I see less and less utility in continuing this ridiculous campaign since it's turning into a high school popularity contest with people accusing others of not agreeing with them because they don't like them. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Fascinating -- you say there is no packaging, but I provided a link to a picture of the package in an earlier comment. Apple circulated thousands of copies of the software to WWDC attendees, in this package. In other words, it was released to a group of people who paid a couple thousand dollars to attend a conference. How can you claim that it wasn't "released" or that there is no packaging? For the product described in this article (i.e. pre-release software), there has indeed been a release, in a package.
I'm glad you're starting to see the futility in arguing this -- now, if you'll stop arguing for the sake of arguing, and agree that the name of the operating system that Apple released to developers is "Mac OS X Snow Leopard", as printed on their web site, in their press releases, on the physical media, in their presentations, and on the packaging, I will go ahead and rename the article. Warren -talk- 11:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

In the past I've supported the version numbers whenever this discussion has come up, but Apple quite clearly is moving to using the cat names. Prominently. Everywhere. I'm not questioning that the next version is version 10.6, I don't doubt that it is, but having this article titled with the versions number is a mistake. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Warren, apparently you will continue to argue until you get your way so why don't you just do it? Not exactly the best method at getting things done, but I guess it works in the end. For the record, I am not the one who changed this article to its current name, so if someone disagrees then you'll hear from them, not me. Fact is Snow Leopard will be v10.6, so if redirects for v10.6 point somewhere relevant I don't really care. Lastly, it's a stretch to consider a pre-release dev DVD kit as "packaging" since it isn't likely representative of the final product, but that's just guessing on my part, though on yours assuming it'll remain static.
I guess the question is why will this article be named differently? Even Leopard, where the packaging says boldly OS X Leopard, then in small non-bold text "Version 10.5". Snow Leopard's final package is likely to be similar, so why is this article going to be named differently than Leopard, or all the other cats for that matter? To make it clear, and as I've said as the conclusion to all my posts about this topic, as long as both names are present and redirects point to the same place then I don't care and there's no issue. There must remain some mention that Snow Leopard is the next major release of OS X (as stated by Apple), meaning it'll be 10.6 (as evidenced in the dev build). If the article became OS X Snow Leopard no issues here, so long as what I've just said is present as that would make the article balanced and correct. If in the end, as in Leopard, and the actual final product packaging represents both names we can amend it then. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not just Warren thats believe the name of this article is wrong. In fact your statement above shows proof that the version number is no longer the main name and that renaming should even be considered for the articles on some of the earlier OS X versions. You state "says boldly OS X Leopard, then in small non-bold text 'Version 10.5'", that sounds like a strong argument for that page to be renamed as well. PaleAqua (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying we should change v10.5's article to Mac OS X Leopard? I'm not saying anything either way just curious. As for my comments I think what I said is quite clear, as in it's correct that it's v10.6 and Snow Leopard and that the article name is not that important (to me anyhow) so long as redirects and the article itself reflect both. Overall this is really a non-issue and I've been saying the same thing all along, my last post didn't change anything except I was more explicit in my indifference of the title of the actual article and facts are Apple calls it Snow Leopard, but also 10.6. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I think we should change the Leopard article name as well, and probably the Tiger one too, at least if I understand [[WP::Name]] correctly. 10.3 and earlier becomes much vague, I probably should take this discussion to the wikiproject for Apple. Not really comfortable doing the move myself, having not done one before. PaleAqua (talk) 00:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

10.3 is Panther. 10.2 is Jaguar. 10.1 and10.0 were never marketed under codenames, but the codenames were Cheetah and Puma.72.71.216.201 (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Version history section

I think it should be removed because it will get to be quite long, and it will be impossible to determine actual releases since few people may have actual access to the OS.

Comments are recommended. Cheers. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Support would make a great admin I agree, Apple releases a ton of dev builds, even more so since it has been released to devs this early. BJTalk 19:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose We did this on Leopard too, and then once it was released to the public, we removed all the dev builds and started fresh with public builds. I say we keep it that way.--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 19:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Stub

Should I mark this as a stub? —[semicolons]— 09:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't. It's complete as of now and will grow.--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 04:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Actual content <_<

Will support up to 16tb for software limit apparantly, which doesn't seem right. While that is the max for 64bit (yey for something other than windoze 2008 server being able to), the software limit should be slighty lower. Not adding this because while I know enough, this doesn't make sense.

http://www.macrumors.com/2008/06/09/mac-os-x-snow-leopard-to-focus-on-performance-quality/ Which also backs up a lot of the article. 86.143.235.82 (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC) (tobylane, but my ip will change and I cbf to register).

And opencl, on the bottom of the official page for this os, I'd heard they(gpus) would be good for password cracking and so on, though I'd like to learn their limits. 86.143.235.82 (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

tHERE SAYONG IT WILL BE RELEASED AROUND FEBRUARY 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3dwarehouse (talk • contribs) 14:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There's something about the kernels of 32 bit being able to use the last .8gig of a 4gig ram system, the same is probably true for 64 bit. Rounding up or whatever, it's really far off, and in terms of amount of space negliable.86.139.159.52 (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

[22] - This seems to say it can use it all the RAM. —[semicolons]— 17:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the point is that it can support a theoretical 16TB. Apple clearly says so on their site. VisvambaNathan (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Near the bottom, where reference is made to Apple starting to roll in 64-bit support starting with Mac OS X 10.3 Panther: Actually, Apple shipped a version of Mac OS X 10.2.8 Tiger on the original PowerMac G5 that had (roughly) equivalent 64-bit capabilities to Mac OS X 10.3 Panther (10.3.0). I've been flamed so many times before for improving Wikipedia Articles, that I don't want to make the edit myself. Perhaps someone who is willing to put up with trolls screaming at them will make this improvement for me? Please? Thanks! GaelicWizard (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you source it? --Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 03:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Quicktime

I don't have the time to do this editing right now, but I think the fact that they're removing the distinction between Quicktime and Quicktime Pro is significant & worth integrating into the article. IIRC, John Gruber has been a critic of that distinction for awhile (e.g. more than just at this link: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/02/10/snow-leopard-quicktime). 71.240.107.25 (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Release Date

There are alot of rumors/ some evidence that Snow Leopard will be released on August 28 2009, Anyone else think this is relevant and should be included for the time being? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.134.209 (talk) 09:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


Grand Central: What the heck is it?

Couldn't it be written a bit more vaguely?</sarcasm>

The description is no more informative than just the name only. Everything said about it is marketing speak. What is it, precisely? An automatical parallelization framework? (I think not). The new thread scheduler for the OS? A user mode/nano-thread scheduler? An annotation framework to emit more synchronization/barrier metadata into Obj-C programs? A constraint solver that tries to work out an execution schedule based on the metadata? Or all or some of there?

Doesn't anyone have any access to the developer builds to test and clarify anything? [Now that the cat's been announced, does NDAs still apply?] --soumtalk 06:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be some useful information here. http://images.apple.com/macosx/technology/docs/GrandCentral_TB_brief_20090608.pdf AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The GCD section needs to be rewritten. The section is incredibly vague and is clearly written by someone who has no grasp on closures or concurrency (e.g. the usage of "Blocks" implies this is an Apple specific technology when lambda expressions are a common feature of many languages such as Ruby and Python). It's terrible. The Grand Central Dispatch article should be used as a reference since it's clear and to the point. --shadowlessClick (talk) 05:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Screenshot

Any chance we could get a better screenshot? It appears as if this was taken from a mockup of a Mac running Snow Leopard, resulting in a glossy area in the upper-right of the screenshot and reducing its accuracy for portraying the operating system. Any official screenshots themselves? Any developer here mind taking a snapshot for us? Althepal (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Available - how?

"Ship in September" doesn't tell us much. How will it be released? Will 10.5 users be able to upgrade free? Or have to buy it? Or will it only come with new Macs? Etc Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Pricing isn't the main focus of these articles, but it will still be developed much further as the weeks go by. FYI, Leopard users will pay $30 and other users will pay like $160 (I think) for Snow Leopard + iWork 09 + iLife 09. People who buy new Macs before Snow Leopard comes out (but after WWDC) will be able to upgrade for $10. And, after it is released in September, it will come on all Macs. Simple enough, right? If you think it's important enough, you're free to add it to the article using http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html as a source. Althepal (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Price

Any reason price keeps getting removed? Would have thought the new price for this version - now confirmed by apple - and being in stark contrast to the pricing of previous versions would deserve a mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.18.94 (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

First computer with exchange support?

I have a question on the sentence, "This step will make Macs the first computers to be bundled with Exchange support." I'm just wondering if there has ever been a computer sold with Exchange software pre-installed. If so, it should be reworded to say, "This step will make Mac OS X the first operating system with native [bundled/included?] Exchange support." In any event, the latter sentence might be more precise. Althepal (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm with (talk). Many PCs can be bought with Office 2007 Pro installed, and all windows needs to have installed is Microsoft Outlook (just not Outlook Express) to support Exchange on the desktop. How about:

"This step will make Macs the first computers to be bundled with Exchange support across the range."

or to explain the whole statement with:

"This step will make Macs the first computers to be bundled with Exchange support across the range, as the Microsoft Windows platform requires the purchase of additional Microsoft Office software."

mattclare (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yea, just make it known that its bundled into the OS and that should makes things clearer. Nja247 13:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I would tend to disagree with that, as vendors such as System76 are been shipping computers with Linux for years, which also support Exchange with the bundled app Evolution. Evolution has been around as a standard part of GNOME since 2004, so any vendor that shipped a computer that came with a Linux distribution that includes Evolution (e.g. Ubuntu) by rights has that title, not Apple.
Apple's claim is simply false. Just because they said so doesn't mean it should be cited. I will remove the claim from the article. — Jeremy 04:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Change made. Here's how it went down "This will make Mac OS X systems the first to be bundled with Microsoft Exchange 2007 support across the range, as other desktop operating systems require the purchase of additional Microsoft Office software." 139.57.153.169 (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It is however, first to be bundled with Microsoft Exchange 2007 support. According to http://projects.gnome.org/evolution/features.shtml , Evolution supports Exchange 2000/2003. There is no mention of 2007... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danindub (talk • contribs) 07:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I still think saying that it's the first operating system to include Exchange support is the most accurate. "Across its line" or something like that is too vague, and it is supposed to make it clear that OS X itself (integrated into all its core apps) supports Exchange, not like other computer manufacturers who may have included extra Exchange software pre-installed.Althepal (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

addressing 16 exabytes?

this page references apple's previous statements of snow leopard being able to address 16 exabytes of RAM, but apple's snow leopard page now says it can address 16 exabytes of ram, which i understand is quite a bit more. it would be nice if someone could verify this, i'm no expert on these things so i may have misunderstood/misread it. http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/#sixtyfourbit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.247.59 (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What that page says is that 64-bit computing enables a theoretical 16 exabytes. Snow Leopard, however, only supports 16 terabytes. - Josh (talk | contribs) 23:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

switch from base2 -> base10

Is it worth mentioning that snow leopard switches from base2 to base10 for counting bytes? It is quite unique in operating systems that 10 MB means 10 000 000 Bytes. --GlaMax (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I would give it a sentence, I think letting people know that 1gb in Snow Leopard is 1gb in a hard drive label, not like other OSes. Althepal (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Windows is the only major desktop OS that doesn't currently do this. The GNU/Linux distributions started using the base10 method when presenting hard disk size to the user years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.21.1.224 (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Well.....won't that make the space that people "get back" become somewhat inflated since some of that will be purely due to the base 2 to base 10 switch....TevashSzat (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

QuickTime H.264 Specs Incorrect

Apple appears to have dropped the GeForce 8600 from QuickTime H.264 decoding. It's not clear why, it looks like Apple just wants to sell new machines (based on the NVIDIA specs).

The Mac OS X site now lists the requirements for that feature solely as a GeForce 9400, with no mention of the 8600 or Radeon GPUs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.31.211.247 (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Phoronix shows OpenGL regression in 10.6

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=macosx_106_benchmarks&num=1

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=macosx_106_benchmarks&num=4

"Interestingly, with Snow Leopard on both Mac Mini systems there is a peculiar regression." ". Therefore, the results are showing a performance increase as the resolution is stepped up. However, even with the resolution increase, Mac OS X 10.6.0 is still having a lower frame-rate than Mac OS X 10.5.8. It is a noticeable drop too. Certainly, "

[url]http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/documentation/GraphicsImaging/Reference/OpenGLRefUpdate/Articles/Introduction.html[/url]

and this one links to: [url]http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/documentation/GraphicsImaging/Reference/CGL_OpenGL/Reference/reference.html[/url]

and there is an red mark on : Managing Drawable Objects "CGLSetFullScreen Deprecated in Mac OS X v10.6 Deprecated. Use CGLSetFullScreenOnDisplay instead.)" /> "

OGL software needs to recompile on macos10.6 for macos himself and need a chance CGLSetFullScreen ---> CGLSetFullScreenOnDisplay if not... OpenGL benchmarks and software are pointless-- Pointless because macos do not shutdown the 3D-Desktop wile the ogl Benchmark run witout the modificantions. runs like runs in windows modus... very slow because the overhead of the 3D Desktop

--Qaridarium (talk) 16:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV and the negativ/Criticism part

"Althepal (talk | contribs) (22,809 bytes) (What the heck? Remvoed criticism section. Not notable, not unique to this OS (any os upgrade needs new versions of some programs for compatibility) and comparison to Ubuntu is totally random.) (undo) "

Althepal do not stand on the Neutral point of view he only shows the good part of macos10.6 and he delets only the bad part(Criticism)!

why he do not delet the bad part(Criticism) of vista in the vista wikipedia Artikel?

i think Althepal is payed by 'APPLE to nuke wikipedia!

While Apple states that Mac OS X 10.6 has been "built for compatibility",[1] certain applications written for Mac OS X 10.5 are incompatible with Mac OS X 10.6. Apple has an official list of affected applications. An unofficial list of such applications has been created at http://snowleopard.wikidot.com/.

Another criticism can be found at this website: [2] that lists non-working applications such as Parallels version 3.0.

Phoronix Media reported a regression in performance of OpenGL games such as Nexuiz.[3] They also report that Ubuntu 9.10/9.04 outperforms Mac OS X 10.6 in most of the 26 tests performed with the Phoronix Test Suite. Ubuntu 9.10 alone outperforms Mac OS X 10.6 in twelve of these 26 tests, while Mac OS X 10.6 comes out at the top in only 6 tests.[4]

QuickTime X has no preferences.

--Qaridarium (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you should read WP:PA. --Steven Fisher (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
O yes right and i sould be cool as Althepal and Delete the Criticism part in the windows Vista artikel only becourse no personal atacks! --Qaridarium (talk) 07:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Criticism sections are frowned upon on Wikipedia. The problems of Snow Leopard are not comparable to those of Vista, for which the article's section is unavoidable. Furthermore, any critical statements have to have citations from notable sources that cite a significant issue as specifically being a problem with that operating system (not issues that effect all operating system upgrades when software needs to be updated for compatibility). The contents of the Snow Leopard criticism section did not meet those criteria. I have no bias towards Apple, but you obviously have a bias against them. Otherwise you would demand that the Windows 7 article have a criticism section too. And even if an article should have a criticism section, it wouldn't last very long on Wikipedia when written with such poor grammar/style.
Additionally, you obviously have no knowledge of what you're writing about. The "built for compatibility" statement was in context of Macintosh computers being able to run Windows.
And you should be happy. The 'criticisms' you mentioned are still in the article, just worked into the reception section. I personally think it's silly, but I'm sure it will be worked out as it approaches the quality of a featured article.
So you obviously have no knowledge of how articles are supposed to be written on Wikipedia. It seems that you just hate Apple, so I don't even know why I'm bothering to respond. From this point on, I am relying on the other well established editors here to keep this article in line with Wiki guidelines. If you continue to argue with weak statements and/or personal attacks demanding to slander an operating system for no good reason, don't expect me to come back to repeat myself. Althepal (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Phoronix's OpenGL tests

Honestly, why should I care? I don't think the benchmarks are notable enough to matter, and the Phoronix citation seems like linkbait. --Steven Fisher (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

And it's interesting. One of the Phoronix articles is about Snow Leopard's general performance gains and the other one showing that Ubuntu and Snow Leopard both sometimes outperform each other. Yet these are used as major system criticisms? Seriously, the only thing negative I've heard about this OS is that it focuses too much on performance and improvements rather than major new features. Althepal (talk) 02:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm wondering if a regression in OpenGL is linked to using some of those resources for OpenCL? Maybe performance benchmark information would be more appropriate in a different section other than Reception? Althepal (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

New features

I'm just wondering, did Spotlight search email messages/definitions in Leopard? Because I know it does in Snow Leopard, I don't think it did in Tiger, and there's no mention of it in the Leopard article. And should the malware checker be mentioned? Althepal (talk) 01:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Upgrade License

Everything I've read, other than the press release cited by the article, seems to argue against the interpretation that the $29 copy of SL is a single use license that permits usage on a Tiger system. For example, Amazon.com's product page states clearly it is only for Leopard users. Is it safe to be reporting this as fact? Tim Butler (talk) 02:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe the physical license documentation that came with a standard retail family-pack made no mention of Leopard. Then again, the software license says Leopard must already be installed and the drive nevertheless allows for a clean install when booted into the disk... And Apple doesn't seem to care what you do. But IMO the coverage of the topic in the article looks fine as-is. Althepal (talk) 03:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I just read the license at http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx106.pdf, which is given as a reference in this WP article, and to me, the EULA seems to explicitly require an install of Leopard in order to use Snow Leopard. Specifically, this WP article says that the $29 Snow Leopard upgrade comes with a Single User license; but the PDF at the link includes three licenses: the Single User, the Family Pack, and the Upgrade. The description of the Upgrade license explicitly says that you can use it only if you have Leopard already. So I think the article misinterprets its cited reference. I do not agree that the $29 Snow Leopard upgrade entitles Tiger users to install Snow Leopard. martin (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Seems slightly like WP:OR to me, further we don't really do pricing here. It's not a catalogue, rather an encyclopaedia. I'd remove it al together, or at least the questionable bits. Nja247 16:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Name

A lot of people are going to struggle with this one, so I'm going to lay it all out here.

The name of this operating system is "Mac OS X Snow Leopard". It is not "Mac OS X v10.6"; it is not "Mac OS X 10.6 "Snow Leopard""; its official marketing name contains no quote marks, no brackets, no version numbers, and no letter v. This is the simple truth of the matter. Where people will get confused is when they look at all the past releases of OS X and go, "why isn't Snow Leopard following the established pattern of using version numbers?" .... Ask Apple. It was their decision -- they made the big cat name the official name of the operating system, instead of being a code name. A lot of people think it's still a code name, but it's really not. They've printed the words "Snow Leopard" right on the front of the box beside the name of the operating system.

When it comes time for us at Wikipedia to decide on the names of articles, we have to go with the most common, most easily-recognized name, based on reliable sources. That's what WP:COMMONNAME says. If someone truly belives that "Mac OS X v10.6" is the most easily-recognized name, when all of Apple's marketing, and the box itself, is saying "Mac OS X Snow Leopard", well... you're welcome to have that belief, but it doesn't reflect the real planet we live on, and therefore does not reflect what we put in Wikipedia. There will indeed be sources out there that say "v10.6", but a lot of that is actually out of habit, and because this article's name has been "v10.6" for the last two years, and many people generally trust that Wikipedia gets it right.

But in this case, we didn't, and a lot of people copied our mistake.

Of course, it doesn't help that some parts of OS X Snow Leopard say "10.6", but that should be about as confusing as seeing Windows 2000 refer to itself as "NT 5.0" in various places, or Windows 7 refer to itself as "version 6.1.7600". Warren -talk- 17:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know... The Mac OS X page on Apple.com and the install disk when Leopard was the OS was titled "Mac OS X Leopard," and at the same time, "About This Mac" reads "Mac OS X Version 10.6" while the version choice in the discussion forums for Snow Leopard says "10.6" and not "Snow Leopard." Even the Tiger OS install box read "Mac OS X Tiger." So I don't see how this is different from previous versions. Changing the picture on the box from an X to a cat shouldn't be the deciding factor here. Althepal (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
"About this Mac" tells you the version number, not the name of the operating system. It's always been this way -- look at an About box on Leopard; it'll say "Mac OS X" in big letters, and "Version 10.5.8" in smaller letters underneath it (example). Does this mean the name of the article on Leopard is wrong, and its title should be updated to Mac OS X v10.5.8? No, of course not. Likewise with pre-release builds of Snow Leopard; instead of saying "Version 10.6", it said the build number (example).
In any event, the About dialog box doesn't say "Mac OS X v10.6", with a lower-case v, so by your own measure, can we really have any confidence in that being the correct name? There's certainly nothing in WP:NCCN that recommends we editoralize "Version 10.6" down to "v10.6" when giving articles a name. What we can be completely confident about, however, is what it says in Apple's marketing materials, and on the box cover itself. Warren -talk- 01:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I still don't see how Apple has used any different official naming from previous versions. It seems to be exactly the same as previous versions (full codename on box, only version number in 'about this mac' etc). I'm just having a hard time seeing what exactly would make the difference between the Leopard and Snow Leopard article naming. Codenames or version names have been listed on the boxes and install disks since at least Jaguar. The only difference I see is replacing the stylized "X" with a photo of a Snow Leopard and putting the name on the front (rather than just the side), which hardly seems sufficient to throw consistency out the window. I may even support moving all OS X version articles to their codenames (seems more commonly recognized than by version number no matter how far back you go), but why should the Leopard article be called "v10.5" when this article is called "Snow Leopard"? Am I just missing something?
So I guess what I'm asking is, can you point to one thing in particular that would be a very strong reason for this article to be called "Snow Leopard" that cannot apply to other articles, to the extent that it is more important than having a consistent naming of the articles here? ~Althepal (talk) 04:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not arguing in favour of changing the names of any other articles, nor am I saying the names of all the other articles are correct. That's not what this talk page is for. What I am absolutely certain about is that the cover of the box of this operating system release says "Mac OS X Snow Leopard".
If you're struggling, just keep staring at the front cover of the OS X Snow Leopard retail box. It'll come to you eventually. Warren -talk- 15:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps. But you seem to be going about this whole thing the wrong way.
Meanwhile, I suggest that you stare at the side of the Mac OS X Jaguar box for a while. Althepal (talk) 00:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Move Back

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved. While the default solution here would be to move the article back to its stable title, I think there's a clear consensus that the current name is more commonly used for this operating system than the proposed title. Arguments about consistency across Wikipedia articles don't carry as much weight, simply because real-world usage is not always consistent. However, everyone would have been better off if this was discussed before moving the article. Editors do not own articles, and it should have been clear from the start that this was going to be contested. Jafeluv (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Mac OS X Snow Leopard → Mac OS X 10.6 — This article should have not been moved but Warren still made this controversial move anyways. It needs to be moved back. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ¤ • ¢ 17:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Explain why. Warren -talk- 17:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Let me break this down:
  1. It shouldn't have just been moved. It's a controversial move & should go thru the proper channels.
  2. All the other OS X upgrade revisions articles are listed under their revision number NOT their Big Cat name.
  3. All versions of OS X have been advertised by BOTH their Big Cat names AND their revision number.
  4. Thru all of Apple's Support page, all the articles are listed under their revision number NOT their Big Cat name & if they do have their Big Cat name, they still have their revision number.
  5. Most tech/news/whatever sites list as either 10.6, Snow Leopard or both.
  6. If you go to "About this Mac", it says the revision number NOT the Big Cat name.
『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ¤ • ¢ 18:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
guldry: There is no "proper channel" for moving articles. Articles of older releases have their names because the number-based versions are the correct names. This has changed in Snow Leopard (and really, in Leopard as well). You will also find no marketing material that says "Mac OS X v10.6". The About box is not where we look for names of operating systems -- we look for the most easily recognized name, and we look for reliable sources. Apple's own web site makes it clear that the name of the operating system is "Mac OS X Snow Leopard", and they mix 10.6 in there in various ways to make it clear where the name lands in the general progression of things -- and also because they've been using version numbers for 25 years, and have only recently started giving their operating system releases names.
When it comes to looking at reliable sources, the most reliable source is the physical box for the software itself. Tech sites will say all sorts of things, and if there is confusion or contradiction, you have to find something more reliable. Do you have the box? Look at it. What does it say on the front?
Answer that question for me. Straight up. What does the box say? Warren -talk- 18:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The 10.5 Leopard box art doesn't have 10.5 on it... 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ¤ • ¢ 19:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The Leopard box doesn't say anything on the front. It does, however, say "Mac OS X Leopard" on the side, and then "Version 10.5" in smaller letters further down the box.
But this discussion isn't about Leopard, so I'll ask you this question again: What does the box for Snow Leopard say on the front of it? If you don't answer this question, I will assume you have conceded the point that the name of the operating system is indeed "Mac OS X Snow Leopard". Warren -talk- 15:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I have no need to respond to you. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ¤ • ¢ 15:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Withdraw your {{movereq}}, then. Warren -talk- 15:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't bow down to egotistical maniacs. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ¤ • ¢ 07:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • information Note: I do think a discussion on the move should have been done on the talk page first. However being that it's done, let's talk now and only change again if there's consensus to do so. Essentially please stop the edit war, as I'd hate to have anyone getting blocked or protect the article. Nja247 18:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
It should have been under move-protection in the first place... 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ¤ • ¢ 18:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I have seen OS X 10.6 being mentioned (usually just by websites mentioning it in glancing), the common name seems to be Mac OS X Snow Leopard. This is even what Apple calls it on the box and on their website [23]. TJ Spyke`
  • Weak Oppose - Apple's website's navigational section does have "10.6 Snow Leopard" as an entry, but pretty much everything else all the marketing material doesn't bother including the version number. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
10.6 is all over the site [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ¤ • ¢ 19:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I'll go by the GHits vastly favoring the current title then. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Suppose its OR but I haven't heard any of my acquaintances talk about 10.6. They all call it Snow Leopard. So should Wikipedia. Also, just did a google search for "Mac OS X Snow Leopard". The heading over nine of the first ten entries all contain "Snow Leopard". The only one that doesn't? The Wikipedia link. Luckily, the page move will fix that.
  • Comment — I would to offer an alternative, Mac OS X Snow Leopard → Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ¤ • ¢ 21:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Can't see that as being helpful. If a version 10.7 comes out it will be part of the Snow Leopard article, just as every version of the Ford Mustang is included in the Ford Mustang article. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Why? Every other major revision of OS X has it's own article. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ¤ • ¢ 21:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Support – In the About this Mac dialog box, there is nothing that says Snow Leopard. Snow Leopard is obviously a secondary name. Move it back to Mac OS X 10.6 Acps110 (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
    • The About dialog box tells us the VERSION of the operating system, including point release, not the NAME of the operating system. In earlier releases of Mac OS X, these were the same, but now, after eight years, it's not. I said people were going to get confused by this, and this is exactly what I mean. Warren -talk- 15:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Warren - I'm rather disappointed to see Warren make the controversial move and the first thing he has to say is "Explain why." For consistency sake, it should fit with past tradition (Mac OS X v10.0, Mac OS X v10.1, Mac OS X v10.2, Mac OS X v10.3, Mac OS X v10.4, Mac OS X v10.5). Restoring Mac OS X v10.6 is not an inconvenience, since people have been, is, and will address it by its version number as well. Most people cannot name the sequence of animal names given to OS X versions. In several years, many Mac users will not be able to remember the animal name for OS X v10.6. What came before Panther? What was the animal name for 10.1? No need to break with tradition here. Warren should have reviewed the past decisions on Wikipedia for the past OS X versions released in this decade and should have seen if there was anything different for 10.6 (there wasn't). —Tokek (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Most people have been referring to it as Snow Leopard, not OS X 10.6. With the past OS's they number has been more common, with the new one though the name is by far the most common name for it. Hell, it's what Apple even considers the official name of it. TJ Spyke 03:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I "should have reviewed the past decisions", Tokek? Dude, I made the {{Infobox OS version}} template used on all Mac OS X and Windows articles; operating system history, naming, and development is my speciality, and I've made thousands of contributions to the encyclopedia along those lines. I also wrote pretty much the entire lead for Mac OS X, Mac OS X v10.5, Windows XP, Windows 7, etc.; I'm pretty confident I know how to do the necessary research. I'm also well-familiar with Wikipedia's naming conventions, which you should review here: WP:NCCN. They encourage us to use the name that people will know. In the case of this specific operating system release, everyone is talking about "Snow Leopard", not "v10.6". Okay, sure, there are people (both end-users and people in the press) who have been keeping track of their Mac OS version numbers for years, and perhaps don't like the move to names, who will still call it 10.6, but that name is not what's on the box. You are also unlikely to ever find a review of this operating system release that doesn't use "Snow Leopard" more prominently than "10.6".
"Past tradition" is not a valid approach to naming articles. Wikipedia does not set the names of things; the creators of things do. It's not our position in the world to encourage consistency of naming; our ONLY goal on Wikipedia is to document the universe as it is. I'm not doing this move because I was bored and needed something to argue with people about -- I'm doing it because it's clear that Apple has changed how they name and market their operating systems, and that Wikipedia needs to be corrected to reflect this new reality. Wikipedia had to struggle a bit to accomodate Microsoft's changing naming schemes for Windows, but it had to be done. Warren -talk- 15:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
"Wikipedia does not set the names of things" - actually, Wikipedia names articles, which is what this discussion is about. The OS is referred to both by Mac OS X v10.6 and Mac OS X Snow Leopard by the company. To state that either is a fictional name would be a false statement. I am not saying that merely pointing to status quo completes an argument. But: when suggesting a break from this practice, do the arguments for the past versions apply to the current version, and do the arguments for the current version apply to the past versions? You say that this reflects a clear change in Apple naming policy, but it doesn't appear at all clear to me, hence both the version number and the big cat names are used, just like it has been all along. Today's OS update was named "Mac OS X v10.6.1" [30]. How come this shift is supposed to be abundantly clear, when I'm seeing nothing at all that's different this time around? If I did see something different, then I would agree with this already-made move. —Tokek (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose move back While I originally disagreed with moving the article see Talk:Mac OS X Snow Leopard/Archive 1#Requested move and Talk:Mac OS X Snow Leopard/Archive 1#Article name, and not entirely comfortable with how the move was done in light of the no-consensus result last time, I believe that 'Mac OS X Snow Leopard' is the proper name for the article. I agree with most of the reasons Warren has given, and you can see more of my reasoning in the archive. Note: The talk archive was not included in the move, so I moved it just so that it linked up again with the discussion page. If this page does get moved back, don't forget to move Archive 1 as well. PaleAqua (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
There wasn't a consensus last time (15 months ago) because User:Nja247 argued against it to wits end, so I decided to wait on it until the operating system was released and we had the final marketing materials and physical product to make a decision on. Warren -talk- 01:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Note that I now have no real opinion on it, except for my initial comment on how it was done without any discussion first. Overall, I agree with what tends to be the new consensus noted above. Nja247 05:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:BOLD is how things get done on Wikipedia. WP:CONS is fully explicit about this fact: It begins with an editor boldly changing an article or other page. In response, the viewers of the page have three options: accepting the change, trying to improve the change, or reverting the change. And it's not like I did this without explaining my rationale. But hey, you seem to enjoy being critical of my work here, so whatever. Warren -talk- 16:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes Warren, I know how Wikipedia works mate, thanks. No need for lectures on policy and guidance please, it's simply un-needed here. Overall there's no reason you couldn't have discussed this first, but as I said straight away it's done and over so let's get on with things. Shall we call this closed as it seems agreed? Also note I don't think I have, or at least I didn't intend to criticise your work. Nja247 19:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
What would you all do if I boldly renamed the other Mac OS X version articles to their names? Althepal (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I would punch a baby it its face, but no really, please don't. If you really want to move the article go thru the proper changes & do the movereq unlike certain people who think they above the normal procedure with controversial moves. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ¤ • ¢ 02:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment — While Keeping the Page Name 'Mac OS X Snow Leopard' is ok, i dont think its ok to delete any reference of v10.6 just by pointing to this discussion. e.g every OS X page has in the info box the "full" name. ( Mac OS X v10.5 Leopard ...) even if the page has a different name ( Mac OS X v10.5 ) so why not get the "full" name in the info box right? ( Mac OS X v10.6 Snow Leopard ). Even Apple calls it that way on its page [31] when wanting to give a "full" name without confusion. another issue: Mac OS X Snow Leopard (version 10.6) in the introduction sounds wrong it should be changed to something that doesnt suggest that this is the 10.6 version release of a OS that is called Snow Leopard. so in my opinion remove the version info there or put in the "full" name too. 202.202.192.130 (talk) 06:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
    • That's true, Apple does refer to it there as v10.6 Snow Leopard. As it refers to older versions like "Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger".Althepal (talk) 19:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"32-bit mode", "64-bit mode", and 32-bit EFI

The article says

Mac computer with an Intel processor (IA-32 "Yonah" processors such as Core Solo, Core Duo and some early Core 2 Duo processors with 32-bit EFI, will be limited to 32-bit; later x86-64 architecture processors will be able to operate in 64-bit mode)

Snow Leopard's 64-bitness has two parts:

  • ability to run 64-bit kernel code.

Obviously, Macs with Core Solo and Core Duo processors can't run 64-bit userland code, much less run 64-bit kernel code, as the processors don't support the x86-64 instruction set. However, a Core 2 Duo processor does support x86-64, so the processor itself doesn't prevent running 64-bit userland (or kernel) code. Even if, for example, 32-bit EFI firmware prevents running a 64-bit kernel, that won't prevent running 64-bit userland code, as userland code doesn't call the firmware - that goes through the kernel. Guy Harris (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah..... it's a tricky thing to explain, because the new thing with Snow Leopard is a 64-bit kernel, but people will be left going, "but wait, didn't OS X already have 64-bit for years?". Sigh, transitions. :-) Application support can get tricky, too because if an application includes a kernel-mode driver (to drive hardware, e.g.), then -- if I understand it right -- the software needs to install both 32-bit and 64-bit variants of that driver, regardless of whether the userland code is 32-bit or 64-bit, and regardless of what kernel is booted into at the time. Warren -talk- 01:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Is the "Development history" section still useful?

Now that it's been released, is that section still useful? No other OS X release page talks about developer seeds before the release. Guy Harris (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A "Development" section is good resource material for people who want to learn about what Apple was saying and doing between the release of Leopard and Snow Leopard. It should tell a story. The current Development section doesn't do this very well, and could stand to be rewritten in prose. I've never been a big fan of build lists, because I was never quite sure of what someone would do with such a list, say, 5 or 10 years from now. Warren -talk- 01:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

Should the "Despite this oversight the Apple developer community is pleased with their efforts to strengthen OS X..." part really be included in this section? It's not exactly a criticism. Soren121 (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"More vulnerable to attack". Bah! Until real world attacks tend to have higher frequency on Snow Leopard computers than Vista computers (which I think the score is still something like 0 to ten million) that section is really misleading. Althepal (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Sure, it may be misleading, but I don't plan on rewriting this section. I just noticed this issue and wasn't sure whether or not that bit was appropriate for the Criticisms section. Soren121 (talk) 00:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I think that the comment is not appropriate (kind of irrelevantly saying Snow Leopard is good) (which of course is separate from the 'misleading' reason of why I think the criticism itself is not appropriate). Two wrongs don't make a right, I don't know why there is a criticism section at all. Althepal (talk) 03:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

ZFS "announced", still not cited

I flagged the Robin Harris link as a dubious reference, but my flag was removed. Does anyone have a better reference, or should we remove the claim? I have no objection to the idea that ZFS was rumored, even that Sun employees announced it, but I can find no reference to it from Apple (who's press releases are still online). --Steven Fisher (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Comprehensibility

This article is not about a really specific scientific topic, but still many parts are impossible to be understood by a non-expert. My opinion is that this article should be shortened.

Stacks, when viewed as a grid (but not as a fan), will allow viewing a subfolder without launching Finder.

Just as an example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blutkoete (talk • contribs) 01:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This is discussing a change to the Stacks feature, which is discussed in the Leopard article where the feature is introduced. What's hard to understand about that statement? Would you like it to read "The "gird" view in Stacks, a feature which allows viewing folder contents in the Dock, has been updated to allow users to open folders within the Stacks themselves to browse for files. Previously, clicking a folder icon would instead open that folder in Finder."? Althepal (talk) 05:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

mac mini/macbook 64 bit kernal boot

Does anyone know a more reliable source for this information http://www.osxbook.com/blog/2009/08/31/is-your-machine-good-enough-for-snow-leopard-k64? It is currently included in the compatibility table but flagged as unsighted. I trying to think of an appropriate way to include this while acknowledging that your millage my very. Phatom87 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just updated the article with this information in view of the fact that this a blog we cann't say for sure it works but that some has made the claim that it does.Phatom87 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Listing Seeded developer releases

It seems that listing a developer seed when articles are posted on such make sense in advance of formal release. These releases have occurred, albeit to a smaller audience. Comments? Lordandrei (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. They're not releases, their builds. Althepal (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think so either. All the information we have about them is sources from rumour sites. Aren't we supposed to use sources that have a reputation for fact-checking? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 03:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
They're reliable enough for the simple data of what date a build was released and what the build number was. It's not like the info could be easily hoaxed; these builds are being downloaded by thousands of developers. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any compelling reason why we should mention anything other than major releases. As the sources for these developer builds tend to be unreliable anyways, I feel anything other than the official releases should be removed.--Terrillja talk 15:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress for other Mac OS X articles

I've proposed that Mac OS X v10.3, v10.4, and v10.5 be renamed to their great cat names. Since it's following precedent set in this article, and currently unanimous among all two of the respondents, I'd appreciate it if some others would be willing to weigh in. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 20:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Troubles

since i upgradet to snow leopard i have a lot of troubles. into www you can find all sort and thereafter know what i mean. i think this article should also list this "new" problems, so that they can be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.244.112.186 (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

  • I have no idea what you just wrote. Please attempt to learn proper English, and then try again. Also, Wikipedia isn't a guidebook. It's an encyclopedia. Search elsewhere on the internets. --V2Blast (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I can think of plenty of better ways to report bugs to Apple than by talking about them in a Wikipedia article, especially since they would have to be very widespread and be mentioned in notable media sources before they could show up here. If you want Apple to fix something, go to http://www.apple.com/feedback/macosx.html. Althepal (talk) 21:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.apple.com/macosx/compatibility/
  2. ^ http://gizmodo.com/5347769/the-mac-os-x-snow-leopard-applications-blacklist
  3. ^ Mac OS X 10.6 Brings Serious Performance Gains
  4. ^ Can Ubuntu 9.10 Outperform Mac OS X 10.6?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mac_OS_X_Snow_Leopard/Archive_1&oldid=1136976504"