Talk:Mac OS X Snow Leopard

Removing unreferenced content

I have noticed that the "Reception" section, among others, has a relatively large amount of unreferenced content for an article of such high importance. It seems as if contributers are using guessing and assumptions to fill in gaps in thier research. I have proposed that unless given opposition, I will remove any unreferenced material within 48 hours, unless it is widely considered to be general knowlege.

I hope no one sees this as a threat, but rather as a message that Wikipedia is a reputable encyclopedia that many people get day-to-day info from, and that no opinions or assumptions, unless significant and quoted, are featured as encyclopedic content.--Interchange88 10:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Added a couple of sources. Toned down some of the questionable language. Removed some things that didn't really belong.

Hopefully improved the section somewhat. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping. Do you think you can find a cite for "Due to the technical difficulties traditionally involved in making applications optimized for multicore CPUs, the majority of computer applications do not effectively utilize multiple processor cores."? I'm currently working on Moscow International Business Center - It needs a lot of work, (as in it was probably written by an anonymous Russian with 2nd grade English), so I haven't the time. It looks like people responded to my message, so it no longer applies. --Interchange88 09:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Got the other "citation needed" while I was there. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I guess all it takes to reference an article is a stern message to others and a few volunteers. I probably won't be editing this page again in a long time, so this discussion is pretty much closed. --Interchange88 14:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad Math

"Although some users have reported hard drive gains of 10-20 gigabytes over the advertised 7 gigabytes, this observed figure is due to Snow Leopard's Finder reporting data size values using decimal conversion (1 GB = 1000 MB) rather than binary conversion (1 GB = 1024 MB)"

Can we do better math? 15 GB = 14 GiB not 7GiB. We don't even know that Apple was referring to GiB. Emuroms (talk) 19:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Since nobody seemed to care, I just removed the false statement. Emuroms (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Apple has released an update to fix Snow Leopard to display file sizes in base 2 counting instead of base 10 counting?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 (talk) 11:37, 2010 April 26 (UTC)

No, they haven't. There's nothing to fix, it is the intended behaviour in Snow Leopard. GoldRenet (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

File compression

Snow Leopard brings back the resource fork, just when I thought Apple had abandoned that. Most of the system files are compressed, into resource forks, and unless some update has fixed this, they show as being zero size in the finder. Is there any way to completely disable this compression? With today's huge hard drives there's really no need for it. BTW, Windows has had similar compression since NT4 (but not in the 9x line) and most people never used it because it didn't save much space and slowed things down a little, "plus" if you password protected AND used compression it was for certain impossible to recover data in the event of losing the password or a damaged MFT. I dunno why Apple figured doing something "the other guys" had for years but rarely used was such a great thing. Perhaps it's just showing off how little performance hit it can have doing the pointless compression? Or was it merely to boast about (not really) reducing size of Snow Leopard? It'd be interesting to see a performance comparison of 10.6 with and without the compression in use.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 (talk) 11:37, 2010 April 26 (UTC)

Just a note that this isn't a general forum, but specifically for discussing improving the article. PaleAqua (talk) 04:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

64-bit architecture

The iMac 10,1 (and later) is also able to run the 64-bit kernel, right? I think the table should be updated to contain the more recent (and current) Macintosh models. I don't know which ones those are, but somebody certainly does. Thank you in advance. 85.1.251.180 (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to echo the previous comment, but for the MacBook Pro5,3. The MacBook Pro 5,1 is in the table as 64-bit capable. Surely the 5,3 is too.--Jeff39 (talk) 03:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Y Done GoldRenet 22:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There is missing information on MacBookPro3,1

Also, it should be mentioned how to know which kernel is being used — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.21.61.179 (talk) 21:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Lion

"Lion" is Mac OS X 10.7, which means it succeeds 10.6, so why not put that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.244.0.89 (talk) 23:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Because, as the comment in the infobox says, "Until Lion is a *shipping product*, it's not yet the successor to Snow Leopard. Please wait until then to fill in "succeeded_by"." For the vast majority of people, Lion hasn't "succeeded" Snow Leopard yet, because they can't get Lion and install it on their machines. Even when it's seeded to developers, only a small number of users will be able to get it. Once you can buy it in stores, then it's succeeded Snow Leopard. Saying Lion succeeds Snow Leopard is like saying Windows 8 succeeds Windows 7 - for most users, it's not really a successor, because they can't get it. Guy Harris (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that complies with WP policy. For example there are hundreds of upcoming movies that most people "cant get yet", but are still listed in the infobox as the successor. Look at The Ring 2 or The Hangover and see their infoboxes. What's even more absurd, is that Snow leopard is listed as the predecessor to lion on the lion page. I don't believe there is any reason to hold lion back as the successor. Only confusing to readers. --Ashershow1_{talk•contribs} 16:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur. An "anointed successor" with a reasonably certain and close ship date is the successor for all intents and purposes. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

EFiX

Produced by ASEM Co., Ltd. with offices in Taiwan. I have visited them on the Computex 2011, also this year. All stated information regarding EFiX in this article is not true. I believe that this information can be taken simple from original creators, also ASEM Co., Ltd websites or forums. Contact information to ASEM Co., Ltd is on their official website: www.asem.com.tw or www.art-studios.net On wiki article says that EFiX is mass-storage device with bootloader onboard. According to patents i have been read and according to manuals i have here for EFiX, statement in wiki is incorrect. EFiX is a BPU, also Booting Processing Unit, an registed term for such new type of devices which was originially designed to help users to boot unsupported OS and to offer GUI. In fact EFiX is a complex solution which offer following features:

• Hardware bootmanager (Patented in USA and other countries)
• Set of 10+ bootloaders for: Linux, Windows, Mac OS X 10.5 / 10.6 and now comming 10.7
• Hardware build-in debugger for Software developers (EFiX V3.0)
• Software debugger (activated with F7 Key while booting) offers special debug-mode for Software and / or Hardware developers. (Exist since EFiX V1.1 till today)

For more information please visit official website of EFiX or talk to the support. I think its simpler than writing or releasing false or misleading information. I have read toms hardware claims. All of them are clearly fabricated. Nothing of stated have been ever prooven. There is no any technical evidence that the statements in Toms Hardware are correct or true. Till today, nobody ever hacked EFiX, nor had any prooves regarding claims being made.

Please revise article according to true information. THX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.249.160.22 (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)