|WikiProject Apple Inc.||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
Other text editors
The sentence "Mac OS X, as a Unix-based operating system, also includes emacs, vi and pico as well as other terminal-based text editors." doesn't seem to flow with the rest of the intro. I'm not sure the best way to fix this, so I'm leaving it as it is for now. -- Matthew0028 21:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I seem to remember a program called Tex-Edit on a 68K mac I saw a month ago, is it the same Program as TextEdit?
It is not the same thing, although I believe it is also available for Mac OS X. Wikifan42 13:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
TextEdit is the strongest text editor I know of that is also lightweight, especially since it reads and writes rtf documents. If the source code is really freely published under the GNU, is there a Linux equivalent, and can a link be posted here?--220.127.116.11 02:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Try textedit.app for GNUstep. Don't expect the same Mac OS X experience, however, since much of the present Mac version depends on proprietary API not found elsewhere. +mt 21:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Apple TextEdit.png
Image:Apple TextEdit.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Open source - what license?
The article says it's open source ... what license is it under? (I just opened it on this Mac and "About TextEdit" doesn't say anything about a license.) - David Gerard 18:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- BSD-family licenses are always a pain to identify ;-) but I did. Free to modify/redistribute, no requirements on advertising, no endorsement = New BSD Arru (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Not a word processor
I really like the program, but I think it's way too much of a stretch to call TextEdit a word processor, it's even called TextEdit for gosh sake. I'll remove it from the categories and clean up the article in a while if no one objects. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I think of TextEdit as a word processor, but a basic one. A word processor is, to my understanding, anything used for typing documents. TextEdit doesn't have all the features that other word processors do, but that helps make it smaller and faster. If you want to add things other than text (such as pictures) you should not use TextEdit. But if you're just typing a paper, it is one of the faster word processors. R41 tmf (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with R41 tmf. Anything from nano up is a word processor. And, erm, TextEdit can do pictures too, it's standard in rtfd.—[semicolons]— 10:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Apart from the fact that an icon can hardly be called an Easter egg, it seems a bit silly to have an entire section containing one line of text.—[semicolons]— 10:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
The information box at the top of the discussion page is incredibly vague. Perhaps somebody could edit the box to indicate: 1) Is it still possible for the public to edit the article? 2) Are only WikiProject members allowed to edit the article? 3) So what if the WikiProject is not currently working to improve it? I'm sorry but the information box should provide some clear guidance for people. WWriter (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Source code-- gone?
The link in the "source code" section is dead. Apple may have pulled that code when Lion was released? I feel like some acknowledgement of this should be made on the page. If they released the source once it's still open source, but I don't know where to find a copy. Awk (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)