Talk:Mac OS X Tiger
|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mac OS X Tiger article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|WikiProject Apple Inc.||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
- 1 System Requirements
- 2 Renaming
- 3 Move
- 4 Exactly what is being proposed?
- 5 Poll on the Mac OS X talk page
- 6 Using PR Images
- 7 "Cupertino, Start Your photocopiers"
- 8 Screenshot
- 9 Bizarre PDF Widget--Not the Only One
- 10 Remove x86 paragraph?
- 11 Image Quality
- 12 Out of date
- 13 Sources
- 14 Getting rid of the ugly black arrow
- 15 64 bit and x86 registers?
- 16 Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext Trivia Merge
- 17 Move to "Mac OS X 10.4"
- 18 Idea
- 19 Assessment
- 20 Fair use rationale for Image:Mac OS X Box.jpeg
- 21 Tiger support status
- 22 Move discussion in progress
- 23 OSX Reinstall Disks
Unless other Mac OS X pages, there is no system requirements section on this one. Anyone to fix this? --Bernard François 08:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Why rename? -- Taku 22:39, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
- A redirect would be more appropriate. --huwr 23:05, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Largely indifferent oppose, unless you wish to redo the Panther page as well. Let's at least have some consistency. Icundell 00:40, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose. AlistairMcMillan 17:30, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I just noticed that you oppose so strongly that you moved the page without consultation. That is what has caused confusion noted below. 'Tiger' is a key part of 10.4's identity. You should not have moved it without seeking consensus. Icundell 12:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I've always thought "Mac OS X 10.4" was a bit redundant, perhaps Mac OS 10.4 would be more appropriate, because we're actually saying Mac OS 10 10.4, which is kinda silly. —User:Ryguillian 2005-04-21
Mac OS X Tiger is the name Apple and the press use to promote the OS  , and Mac OS X v10.4 "Tiger" is the full name they use to sell it as a product . I believe the short name should be used for the article title, and the full name in the introductory paragraph. —Cantus…☎ 18:30, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Conditional Agree, assuming that the other pages are done to match. Since it clearly is the common-language version it makes more sense to use. --Ctachme 01:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- For earlier versions, we could use Mac OS X Panther (which indeed seems to be popular, by Google tests) and Mac OS X Jaguar. Mac OS X 10.1 would still be Mac OS X 10.1 as it was never known with its codename Puma as part of the name. The initial version of the system was simply known as Mac OS X, not Mac OS X 10.0, etc. etc.—Cantus…☎ 03:32, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
- The original version was Cheetah. Icundell 15:25, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please leave the article names as "Mac OS X v10.x". If we end up using the codenames on some of the articles and not on others, then not only does it make it harder to find articles by simply typing in addresses, but someone who is unfamiliar with the codenames is not going to understand comparisons. If someone says "Tiger includes full support for X but Puma only has partial support" they could mis-interpret Puma as following Tiger, however with the simple version numbers it is clear. AlistairMcMillan 17:29, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- That's what redirects are for. I'm all for Mac OS X 10.x without the ugly "v". —Cantus…☎ 22:35, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
After considering, I agree that the articles should be named "Mac OS X v10.0", "Mac OS X v10.1", "Mac OS X v10.2", "Mac OS X v10.3", and "Mac OS X v10.4". I don't like removing the version numbers and using only the cat names, because then it's not immediately clear whether "Mac OS X Panther" is more recent or less recent than "Mac OS X Jaguar". I don't like leaving out the 'v' because "Mac OS X 10.0" is wrong according to Apple, redundant, and sounds weird when read ("mac oh ess ten ten point oh"). - Brian Kendig 23:05, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Exactly what is being proposed?
At the top of this page, and on the requested moves page, is proposes a move from Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger to Mac OS X Tiger.
Underneath that it says change it to Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger.
Which are we being asked to vote on? I have no problem with losing the 'v'. I have a problem with losing the version number. Can we have some clarity please? Icundell (after the fact signing 'cos I forgot)
- There is no clarity. Essentially there are 3 issues:
- Include a "v" prefixing the version number
- Include the version number itself
- Include the code name
There is no clear consensus at this point. I encourage us to vote on all three issues so we know exactly what we are doing. --Ctachme 02:07, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Right. In that case I'm inclined to say the 'v' is a bit ugly, but the version number is essentially. Icundell 00:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I think it looks weird without the 'v', with the 'X' and '10' right next to each other - it's like when people would say "Mac OS 9 9.1". Otherwise I agree that the version number is important, whether or not the cat name (for Jaguar, Panther, and Tiger - not the previous two) is put after it. - Brian Kendig 02:58, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Poll on the Mac OS X talk page
I think this page is kind of confused and unclear on what people are voting, so I've tried to make the poll more concise, and I've posted it at Talk:Mac_OS_X#What should the versions be called? (because this applies to all Mac OS X versions, not just this one). - Brian Kendig 02:38, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Using PR Images
- I've been pondering this... the only thing is they have a pretty obvious user agreement thingy when you download image. It says somthing like "press-only," can we really consider ourselfs press? Besides it's better use our own picutres if we can... less copyright issues. --Ctachme 23:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Well, we're using one of their images now, aren't we? That's right off the Web site! How is this justified? --Ryguillian
"Cupertino, Start Your photocopiers"
I strongly question the inclusion of the "Cupertino, Start Your engines" anecdote. a) It seems highly out of place with the rest of the entry, b) specifically bringing it up seems to imply a position on whether Dashboard is in fact a Konfab copy, something which is extremely debatable, and most importantly c) adds negligible informational value to the topic at hand. -John Kenneth Fisher 05:51, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
- For a start, it's "Cupertino, start your photocopiers", and the point is that it is firing back the exact same sentiment at Apple that they fired at Microsoft at WWDC. In other words, according to Rose, the pot is calling the kettle black. It's hard to object to its current wording since it simply states the facts - the WWDC slogans are a matter of historical record, and are (and will remain) quite interesting. The Rose addition is also a matter of fact, though as time goes on it most likely will cease to matter - Dashboard is the thing, not Konfabulator, like it or not. So I'd say just give it time. It might remain interesting to note that at the time of Tiger's launch there was this little spat going on, and it's recorded here for posterity.Graham 11:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- "though as time goes on it most likely will cease to matter" is indeed my point. It seems to me that the period of time in which that would be considered a noteworthy event in the history has already come and gone. But my objections are n the record, and if I'm the only one who thinks it is irrelevant information, I'll bow out quasi-gracefully. -John Kenneth Fisher 12:36, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
Can we get a new screenshot of Tiger that:
- has some open windows and applications (that come with Tiger)—not to the point of clutter, just one or two that are more relevant than a blank desktop;
- uses a smaller resolution so that more detail is visible in the thumbnail?
- Sure, i'll make one just like the one I did for panther --Ctachme 02:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
- Such a screen shot would idealy be shot at the smallest resolution possible with a Finder window open, the dock showing, and a spotlight search in progress. --huwr 06:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
Bizarre PDF Widget--Not the Only One
Got a correction for the article if someone wants to either pick it up or encourage me to jump in:
The printing dialog in Tiger now features a drop down menu for creating PDFs, sending PDFs to Mail, and other PDF related actions. However the user interface has been criticised for creating a hybrid widget that looks like a plain button but acts like a pop-up menu. This is the only place in the entire Mac OS X interface where such an element appears.
Actually, there's one other place this annoying hybrid widget appears: in the Help Viewer where it's either a Home button for a particular help area, or a menu of all the help libraries.
Which takes the fire out of the last line (another reason I didn't want to jump in and fix it).
Barefootguru 09:20, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
- OK, no-one's commented on this and have found another occurrence (the Save button in the attachments line when viewing an e-mail), so have corrected the article.—Barefootguru 05:30, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
Remove x86 paragraph?
Mac OS X 10.4 itself has little to do with the intel transition, and the paragraph should be removed, i think. Is tiger intel-compiled?
- I disagree. OS X has everything to do with the Intel transition. Without an operating system that is fundamentally cross-platform, Apple wouldn't be able to do what they are planning. --Yamla 22:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
- Tiger has been compiled for IA-32 x86, and someone's been leaking build numbers onto the Mac OS X page (that apparently the 10.4.3 release for those developers with Intel Transition kits was done within days of the official release for PowerPC). As far as what else is already recompiled and working on a MacIntel, I can't even speculate. --JohnDBuell | Talk 07:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
- This whole sub-topic can probably be removed; Mac OS X 10.4.4 and later are available for the Macintosh Intel machines, and every system release since then has worked on both ppc and x86 architecture systems. Stattenf 04:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
The images on this page are absolutely ugly. Anyone with Tiger can upload a hi-res version.--Nessup 17:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Out of date
This page is full of out-of-date information, mostly about the Intel transition.
Intel Macs aren't coming in June; they already arrived in January. (I'm typing on an Intel iMac right now.) The current Tiger release is a "universal" build that runs on both Intel and PPC. (The only thing that's still missing is 64-bit Intel.) It might even be worth putting in the summary that Tiger is the first version of OS X that runs on x86 boxes; while Apple isn't pushing it as one of the hundreds of new features in Tiger, it's clearly one of the most important.
Also, the information about unauthorized/pirated releases and Apple's Trusted Computing technology needs to be updated. It's also a little awkward as it stands. Either the whole discussion should be shrunk down to its essentials, or it should be expanded to include more information (and maybe even to mention the renewed speculation, in the face of the quick cracks, that Apple doesn't really care about DRM as much as their claims and lawsuits would imply).
There are probably a few other things, but that's what I noticed immediately.
On another note, it would be nice to mention that Tiger is based on Darwin 8 (both x86 and PPC), rather than just Darwin. It's surprisingly hard to find information on which Darwin version goes with which OS X version online, and this seems like a good place for it.
This is a pretty good article, but it's really lacking in the sources department, especially for claims in the "Interesting facts" section. Everything else that could be categorized as "news events" (like Apple filing suit against file sharers). Apple themselves are a fine source for information about the OS itself (ie. new features), but let's see if we can find some reliable sources for the rest. Warrens 23:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Added a source for the whole numbers thing. Also re-named the heading, firstly because it was a bit POV and secondly it is probably the least "interesting" section in the whole damn article. AlistairMcMillan 00:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Getting rid of the ugly black arrow
How do I change cursors in OS X 10.4?
- That's new. I've never heard of anyone who wanted to change the cursor, and I can't find any software at the moment. Is there a particular problem you have with the current cursor? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 05:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- As of version 1.3, Mighty Mouse is Intel-compatible. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 06:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
64 bit and x86 registers?
- No, it isnt at all. x86_64 support is introduced in Mac OS x v10.5 Leopard.
- —Claunia 13:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for answering, was looking in here for it too. - MSTCrow 08:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext Trivia Merge
I'm in support of this merge; I think that the Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext easter egg is at the very least interesting, at the very most, a point of discussion about different software companies' approaches to piracy given their needs. Beatsleepless 04:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm opposed to merging it here. There's no particular reason it belongs in the 10.4 article. Odds are it will still be there in 10.5. I think a RFD on Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext would be more appropriate. --Steven Fisher 20:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think the macs before OSX had an image hidden somewhere too. Can't find a ref though. --h2g2bob 18:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm opposed to merging it here. Infact I'm not convinced it warrants mention at all. Some extension comes with some text-file and exports some text into address-space ? Does anybody care ? --Eivind Kjørstad 11:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. This is trivial in the extreme. AlistairMcMillan 11:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dont Steal Mac OS X.kext AlistairMcMillan 11:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Move to "Mac OS X 10.4"
What exactly is v10.4? Is it "v. 10.4"? I can't see a reason for keeping this. Nobody calls OS X like that not Apple/users/journalists. Also server editions of OS X comes without v - Mac OS X Server 1.0 as well as all versions in Mac OS X Server and Mac OS 9 etc. I suggest move of client versions to Mac OS X 10.x. Anyone disagrees?--Pethr 05:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Disagree. Is it really important? It comes up by searching Mac OS X Tiger anyway, and this is the oficial name.--Adam Fisher-Cox (criticize or compliment) 22:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand your point. I proposed move to "Mac OS X 10.4", v10.4 isn't official name as you suggested. The move was proposed for consistency and common usage reasons.--Pethr 02:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- In moving without consensus, you've created many double redirects. --Steven Fisher 17:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't understand your point. I proposed move to "Mac OS X 10.4", v10.4 isn't official name as you suggested. The move was proposed for consistency and common usage reasons.--Pethr 02:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- On your point that "Nobody calls OS X like that not Apple..." Perhaps you should have researched that a little more. Mac OS X v10.4 Mac OS X v10.4 APPLE-SA-2006-06-27 Mac OS X v10.4.7 Mac OS X Server version 10.4 If you had posted this query on Talk:Mac OS X, you would have received a lot more responses. AlistairMcMillan 19:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ooops, you're right. There are other examples as well   but Apple really uses v for OS X versions. In general google returns more matches on Mac OS X 10.4 but it can be discussed if it is right. v10.4 seems incorrect because abbreviation should look like "v. 10.4" to be correct... Also common usage is IMO argument in this matter.--Pethr 19:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
You do notice that this was discussed at the top of this page back in 2005. With the articles at "Mac OS X 10.x" they read "Mac Oh Ess Ten Ten Point Four" or "Mac Oh Ess Ten Ten Point Three". Much better with the V in there. "Mac Oh Ess Ten Version Ten Point Four".
And I think whatever Apple calls it trumps common usage. You create something, you get to name it. That's why it is "Mac Oh Ess Ten" instead of "Mac Oh Ess Ex". AlistairMcMillan 19:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- As you said, the discussion is two years old and no consensus has been reached. Nobody uses this name and nobody searches for it. It is also not correct abbreviation. I see strong case for avoiding v in article name.--Pethr 00:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- What do you mean "nobody uses this name"? Apple uses it. Do you want more examples, from their press releases "Apple® today previewed Mac OS® X version 10.4", "Apple® today announced that Mac OS® X version 10.3", "we think the combination of OS X v10.2", "Mac OS X v10.2". From their support pages "Mac OS X v10.4", "Mac OS X v10.3", etc  , etc. I could go on for ages. You can't say "no one uses this", when Apple uses it again and again and again. AlistairMcMillan 00:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- The mentioned discussion ended with no conclusion, it simply died down. No consensus or overwhelming support for one or another has been reached. It's like names of countries - use official name in Infobox but place the article according to the most commonly used name. I wonder if you really think that people intuitively use "v10.4" when trying to get information on the subject of this article?--Pethr 01:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah the discussion died out two years ago. Since then everyone seems to be happy with the articles at "v10.x". Personally I prefer the articles at the "v10.4" version because that makes more sense than them reading as "Mac Oh Ess ten ten point something", but by all means try to build consensus towards moving the articles. And like I said earlier, if you post the discussion in the "Mac OS X" discussion page you'll probably get more attention. AlistairMcMillan 02:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I really think we should leave this the way it is. If we just leave all the Mac OS X pages the way they are, then we'll never have to argue about them again. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 20:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not commenting either way but my experience is official usage does not generally trump common usage. On the other hand, determing common usage is not always easy and common usage does not include venacular usage and the like, even if they are more common (e.g. gasoline even though gas is by far the more common usage in the US) Nil Einne 15:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I think when iPhone roles out, the short snippet in the intro to the article about a specialised OS X on ATV should get a new section that deals with the new, customised versions of OS X on ATV and the iPhone. It seems odd to add the info in a couple of sentences in the intro without going into more detail.Nja247 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- The iPhone and Apple TV versions of Mac OS X are likely going to be specific to those platforms, so it makes more sense to go into detail about them in the iPhone and Apple TV articles. AlistairMcMillan 23:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Could be a "B" class article, however lacks criticism and overall reception into the market. Also no reviews of the product are present.
- The versions section would like MUCH better as a table. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Mac OS X Box.jpeg
Image:Mac OS X Box.jpeg 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 this Wikipedia article 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.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
Tiger support status
Last evening I added "citation needed" to two seemingly contradictory statements about Tiger's support status. After Tiger did not get the recent 1.5.0_20 Java update which Leopard received, I assumed Tiger became unsupported with the release of Snow Leopard. However yesterday Tiger received the 2009-005 security update, which seems to imply it is supported. Still no Java update though. If anything the current support status of Tiger is unclear. I take it Apple doesn't make official pronouncements when it comes to an operating system's end of life? Phaelon (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- So far all I've found is Vintage and obsolete products in Apple's knowledge base, but that only seems to cover hardware not software. PaleAqua (talk) 05:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
- Mac OS X v10.4 "Tiger" is unsupported. It stopped receiving Mac OS X 10.4.x releases (point releases) around the time Mac OS X v10.5 "Leopard" came out. Since Mac OS X v10.6 "Snow Leopard" was released, it also stopped receiving security updates.
- This is the method Apple uses for every Mac OS X release. From its release until around the time a new Mac OS X release comes along, it gets point releases (for fixing bugs, or occasionally introducing new functionality). From then on it only receives security updates until the Mac OS X after that comes out.
- This is not official, but it has always been the case. GoldRenet 16:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mac OS X Leopard which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RFC bot 21:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
OSX Reinstall Disks
I think the following quote needs a reference or should be removed,
"Although the only Intel discs produced were the gray-colored "restore" DVDs supplied with new Macs that will only install on the model of Mac that they are intended for, unlike the retail DVD that can be used on any Mac supported by Tiger."
I reworded this, but the paragraph is still a bit awkward. The basic point is that you could buy a 10.4 retail DVD to install on your supported PPC Mac (which presumably shipped with an earlier version, or why buy Tiger?), but there was no retail version of 10.4 for intel; it only shipped preinstalled on Macs which came also with these grey restore DVDs. The Grey disks for 10.4 are always locked to the model they are shipped with (through some simple code to check the model the installer is running on against an array of allowed models). It is trivial to get around this, as the code that does the checking is in a text file which can be edited, alternatively, you can target disk mode the unsupported model and plug into a supported model and run the install from there. There are other limitations, which are essentially driver issues, in that each Mac has a 'minimum supported OS' which is typically a point release, so for example, you might not be able to install 10.4.4 on a Mac originally shipping with 10.4.6 because some of the drivers for the newer model are not included in the older release.
My other concern with the paragraph is how to best express the intel version. It was not a 'release' or 'edition' in the sense of a stand alone product, certainly not one you could buy. The restore disks themselves also were not limited to the OS but also contained things like iLife and Office 2004 Trial (even Filemaker Trial, I recall seeing), so these disks are not really even a release in the form of a clear cut OS X 10.4 product. Perhaps something like 'an intel build of Tiger shipped with the new intel macs, but was never made available as a stand alone retail product'.