Talk:Mac OS X Snow Leopard

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. BJ^Talk 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. [1] ☆ 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. BJ^Talk 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

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". BJ^Talk 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)
  • The fact is that many reliable sources are calling it 10.6. BJ^Talk 21:34, 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. BJ^Talk 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)

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. BJ^Talk 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: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] BJ^Talk 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. BJ^Talk 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)

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. BJ^Talk 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. BJ^Talk 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)

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. BJ^Talk 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)