Talk:macOS version history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:History of OS X)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Apple Inc. (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Macintosh, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Comment[edit]

The material here is better covered elsewhere, and there is a bunch of misleading stuff, so massive editing is called for. "humble approach" to open source? Puh-leez - that's the part of Apple I work in, and I ain't seen no humility yet. :-) Unfortunately, as an employee I'm not in a good position to write neutrally, so others will have to fix. Stan 04:29, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I agree, this page is very POV, and of limited interest in its current form. It's also not very encyclopaedic - what is APSL? Please write for intelligent but uniformed readers - if they already know, they won't be looking here to find out. GRAHAMUK 09:01, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Added more detail about Rhapsody, Steve Jobs' CEO status, Mac OS X Server 1.0, and a couple other things. Phil Welch, 23 October 2003.

Merge with Mac OS X[edit]

I think this page needs to be merged into Mac OS X, since most of the history is already there. Any objections? Ctachme 22:21, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Windows has it's own history page. I think Mac OS X has a rich history and deserves detail in a separate article. Ryguillian 19:48, 12 May 2005 (CST)

ARS links....[edit]

I think it's hard to argue that we need 11 links to seperate ARS Technica articles. One link to their site maybe, and let them handle the internal linking for people who are really interested, but 11 links is too much like link spam, IMO Wikibofh 13:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I think a single link to their site (rather than to actual information about the topic) would be pointless. Someone was going through Wikipedia taking out links and even mentions of Ars Technica, which was obvious vandalism, which is why I put them all back. If 11 is too many, perhaps culling the list to the most significant articles would be better? Tverbeek 14:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree with simply culling the list and would support that. I talked with the user doing the full ARS removal and he agreed to stop, but cited this page as the worst offender, which I agreed with. He did have a few pages that the ARS links were gratuitous and I clean a few of them up. I think we're at a good place if we can just agree on a reasonable number here. For a full discussion see User_talk:65.162.78.194. Wikibofh 15:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
When someone comes up with links that provide as much information about the history of Mac OS X (which is coincidentally what this page is titled), then I will fully support cutting some Ars links. Until that time, and considering that most tech reviews these days are little more than re-printed press releases with fresh bylines, I respectfully suggest that these links remain. AlistairMcMillan 01:19, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Agree with you there - Ars provides some of the best in-depth information out there, and doesn't have an agenda or bias either. They should stay. Graham 02:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I would argue that a better source for in-depth discussion without an agenda or a bias would be the wikipedia.  :) I don't also don't think that we need a link to every subversion of the software, as well as several of the betas. Why don't we simply make it a plan to expand this article and slowly diminsh those links? Wikibofh 17:01, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry if I sound snarky, but how about make it a plan to not be influenced by anonymous editors who (1) border on vandalism and (2) for all we know run sites that compete with the ones whose links they are deleting? AlistairMcMillan 16:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

The need to specifically refer to multiple different articles is inherent within the need to document at all. A reader should not have to rummage through a large data base or an entire book to find a singe bit of information that was being referenced. The casual reader should have all essential information in the article. The person who is using the article as a portal to the subject should have a road map of references available.

What is the objective you perceive for Wikipedia articles? Children's book levels of research, documentation and exposition? Or should the article provide essentially information while containing enough information via documentation so as to provide a serious researcher with the leads to what they might need to pursue?

p.s. have operated every version f OSX from Kodiak on. My first experience troubleshooting a Mac goes back to System 3.1 (the owner had a mismatched System & Finder installed). I suspect this article might often be accessed by persons wanting to know what System options are available for an older machine, for either the newest possible system or for restoration to the machine's original configuration. Information which the article does not provide.

Mark Lincoln (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mark Lincoln: FYI, you just replied to an eleven year old thread about what is now a totally different article. I'd say these comments need to be archived. — Smuckola(talk) 15:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

naming[edit]

I used to have a mailing list post from 1999 or so where someone suggested "Mac OS X" as a name for what was then unofficially being called 'Millennium' and also suggested Apple open source the non-graphical parts of the OS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Rhapmovie.png[edit]

The image Image:Rhapmovie.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --20:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Mac OS X's file system[edit]

Mac OS X uses the same HFS+ file system as Mac OS 9, like it says here. So I think that saying that it has a different file system (as the article says) is wrong. It organizes things in a more UNIX-y way, but it uses HFS+ to this day.

Fmfreier (talk) 05:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I made this change because you are absolutely right, HFS+ was the filesystem on OS 9 and has been the filesystem on OS X from the beginning. Jsnell (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem is that, in some places, including Wikipedia articles, some people use "file system" to refer to the directory layout (the "organizes things in a more UNIX-y way" stuff) rather than to the on-disk data structures used. Unix filesystem, for example, spends more space discussing the directory layout than the on-disk file system (which is probably just as well, as there's no one on-disk layout that all Unix-like systems, or even all AT&T Unix systems, used).
I'm not sure what the right way is to mention the directory layout being (not surprisingly) more Unixy in OS X than in OS 9 and predecessors, assuming it's worth noting. Guy Harris (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, there *was* no directory layout other than the System folder pre-X. Around the OS8 time Apple included Applications and Documents folders at the root level but apps could be installed anywhere. I'm sure everyone knows someone that installed everything to the desktop.

Redirect from Eric Gould Bear[edit]

Article Eric Gould Bear has been redirected here because his company has patents that, they claimed, would cover several summarizing features of OS X (see article history and last version). I'm adding this note per WP:PRESERVE AND WP:BLAR. Diego (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

OS X is certified UNIX as of Leopard[edit]

This article says that OS X is UNIX-like. According to OpenBrand, OS X is certified UNIX 2003, beginning with the Intel version of OS X 10.5 Leopard on October 26, 2007.

I do not understand why the name of the operating system is in quotation marks. Why OS X "Leopard" but not Microsoft "Windows"? Panther, Tiger, Leopard, Snow Leopard, Lion, Mountain Lion, and Mavericks are not code names. They are the official marketing names of the operating systems.

One must disabuse oneself of this quirk. It is not proper to add quote marks or other punctuation in a way that edits the trademark (or service mark) or implies that the name is not a trademark (or service mark). — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenWC (talkcontribs) 16:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

With regards to the first comment, I've added a paragraph noting that Leopard, Snow Leopard, and Mountain Lion are certified UNIX(R), giving the Open Group Register of Open Branded Products pages for them as citations. The OS is still "Unix-like" - all UNIX(R) systems are ipso facto "Unix-like"; you can't get much more "Unix-like" than being a certified UNIX(R) - so I left in the sentence describing it as "Unix-like".
With regards to the second comment, I removed quotations from locations where they don't belong. They do belong in the first paragraph of the "Releases" section, because the words are used to refer to themselves, not to the releases, and arguably belong in the section titles, because they're separate items from the version numbers. Guy Harris (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Because there is an exact certification of what Unix is and isn't, "Unix-like" basically means that it's not Unix but it's similar. That's how wikipedia's categorization system is used, too. To be more inclusive to a genre, one would say "Unix and Unix-like systems". — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 19:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
If that's true, you might want to edit Unix-like so that it no longer says
A Unix-like (sometimes referred to as UN*X or *nix) operating system is one that behaves in a manner similar to a Unix system, while not necessarily conforming to or being certified to any version of the Single UNIX Specification.
as that seems to imply that "Unix-like" includes UNIX(R) ("not necessarily conforming", not "not conforming"). Guy Harris (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Reversion of updates[edit]

For reasons that I cannot understand, User:Smuckola keeps undoing my updates to this article. In the versions he favors, the "Releases" section lists all of the "big cat" code names, then stops when it gets to the "California" names. I've tried adding these, which he reverts, disparaging it as "recentism" (which I think misses the point of that issue... just because something is recent doesn't make it bad to document). One might reasonably argue instead that the list is redundant and unnecessary, but if the list exists it should be complete rather than petering out as if only the older releases really matter. If "Puma" and "Tiger" and "Snow Leopard" and the rest of the cats are worth mentioning, so are "Yosemite" and "El Capitan". -01:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted Smuckola's latest deletion of information about a recent release, because his justification for it was nonsensical. We're supposed to be balanced, and that means treating all OS X upgrades more or less equally, not giving extra attention to some just because they're older, and short shrift to newer ones. So I've also trimmed down the three subsections under "Releases" that actually did have excessive details (better left to the main articles about them). Now each point-release has one short paragraph describing its most noteworthy changes: no more, no less. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

History doesn't end with 10.0[edit]

The text of the article as it is now is really the prehistory of OS X, talking about the development of the OS up to the point where it was released to the public, then lapsing into a series of release notes for the point-releases. Shouldn't the material from OS_X#History be incorporated here instead, talking about how it developed in Apple's software strategy, first as the software of the revitalized Mac, then as a companion to iOS... the influence of Forstall, then of Ive (neither of whom are even mentioned)...? -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

"See also" to Microsoft's Windows 10[edit]

@Guy Harris: This article is basically a version history and just because it doesn't use the version history template from other articles doesn't make it less so, as both Windows 10 and O.S. X are desktop operating systems they are related.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)