Talk:MacOS/GA2

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hi. I'll be reviewing this article. It's only fair to warn you now that all my personal computer experience has been with IBM-compatible running MS-DOS and various Windows versions. That may cause me to raise some comments / questions that look strange to Mac afficionados, but hey, most readers use Windows, and if this article explains things more clearly to them you might make some converts.

I usually look at "high-level" issues such as structure and coverage, then at the nitty-gritty, and finallly at the lead, when all main content issues have been resolved. --Philcha (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Coverage

Overall I think the article is too tech-oriented (but not enough for real developers) and too eager to feature Apple's cool names for various system components. OTOH I think some significant topics are not covered.

• Most of the release history, i.e. most of section "Versions", should go in the "main" article History of Mac OS X. Mac OS X is big enough anyway, and there are things I think it needs to cover.

I would prefer to see, minimally, the list of the numeric versions together with the common versions. Ie: 10.5 Leopard, 10.6 Snow Leopard for a quick reference.Rawlogic (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

•  Done The "Architecture" section does nothing for me at all. My feeling is that Mac-oriented developers won't need it and non-developers won't care. The discussion at Talk:Mac_OS_X#Architecture points the same way.

As I though. Nuked. Dravick (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that in-depth technical details should be left out, but we should at least hint at some of the underlying design, such as the list of layers that I provided. The list is very easy to understand and explains a great deal to both developers and the end user.Rawlogic (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• There's nothing at all about the competitive success or otherwise of Mac OS X in the desktop/laptop and server markets. I guess the main competition are Windows (main attraction is lots of apps) and Linux (free).

I'll try to do that. However, I do not really know where to put all of that as of now, so in the meantime I'll throw everything in "Description". I'll probably create a new section afterwards. Dravick (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I would leave this out. This would go under a more general category such as operating systems. Where would the comparisons end?Rawlogic (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"Where would the comparisons end?" is not a great question. For personal computers, Windows is dominant, Mac OS second by along way, Linux has barely enough users to be notcieable, and the rest are nowhere. For servers, it's Linux, other Unix brands, Windows and Mac. --Philcha (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Seeing the mention of Xcode made me realise there's nothing about pricing options and "trim levels" of the type so well known to Windows users. In the Windows world I'd expect developer tools to be priced separately.

Well, Apple released their developer tools for free, so a copy with or without them is the same price. Dravick (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

TANSTAAFL. The bundling of developer tools simply means that their cost is partly / mainly paid by non-developer users, which is not a good deal for them. If you can't find Mac-specific sources for this, try Googling for "cost bundled software app application program" - unless of course you can show that both development and support / maintenance of developer tools cost Apple nothing. --Philcha (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I would say Xcode is on par with gcc and the "linux developer tools" (e.g. code::blocks, etc.); that is, they are free for everyone. Of course, gcc must have generated some expenses when developed, but it's still free for everyone. Dravick (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The applications that you wish to run decide the OS that you will install. Microsoft has free developer tools now (Visual Studio Express), perhaps to counter the fact that Mac is gaining ground due to an always free Xcode. Apple Developer Connection (ADC) memberships come in different flavors.Rawlogic (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you've just supported the point about the importance of apps. --Philcha (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Nothing about price / performance comparisons. I think this is significant because that was the original Mac's Achilles heel - in the 1980s it was seen as user-friendly but too expensive to be a practical business tool; that led to a shortage of apps, as developers did not think the Mac was a good bet; and the Mac was rescued from oblivion by DTP, especially by Quark Express. Yes, I realise that's partly a hardware issue. However the original Mac, although having a more powerful processor than most PCs of the time, was slow because the GUI used so much system resource.

There used to be a mention of retail price. Someone added a price in USD, then someone else thought it was unfair and added a price in CAD, then GBP, and so on. We ended up with a huge table of prices that was very unencyclopedic and mostly ininteresting. Dravick (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There's no need for every currency. I'd limit it to $US, Euro and £UK, as these are the main international trading currencies - you couldJapanese Yen.

More seriously, the 1980s problem was that for a given total spend (hardware and software) you got a lot more useful performance (e.g. on big spreadsheets) from an MS-DOS PC than from a Mac. See #Some sources I found from Google. --Philcha (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I disagree for price listing. It ended being a big issue, whereas the actual usefulness of that information is quite limited. And someone who wants to buy it will most certainly go to the apple website instead of wikipedia. Dravick (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Dravick. Pricing information is hard to keep up to date. Also, performance is so subjective that it should not be included. As Mac OS X 10.6 will be stricly Intel processors, this whole issue will become moot. In the end, you get what you pay for. Desktop publishing is huge right now, regardless of platform, and the Adobe Suite runs on Windows and Mac.Rawlogic (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree that "performance is so subjective that it should not be included". You can argue about the choice of benchmarks, but their results are numbers, not at all subjective. Linux users would probably disagree with "In the end, you get what you pay for." --Philcha (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought we were talking about hardware. Benchmarks are not subjective, certainly. However, you'll need to compare Intel vs. Intel and test implementations of standard technologies like Java and OpenGL. Which vendor has implemented the technology in a faster/more efficient/less resource intensive way on identical hardware? Besides commonly implemented third party standards and technologies, you would always be comparing apples and oranges, and hence, always subjective.Rawlogic (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No, benchmarks are not subjective. I would admit they may not be neutral, but users don't care about that, they care about bang for the buck --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Nothing about security, especially against malware on the Internet - which is famously a big issue with Windows. Is Mac OS X inherently more secure, or it simply a less attractive target to perpetrators because of its smaller market share?

In my opinion, the reason is that security is just not a concern for most people using Mac OS X. I would say that smaller market share does make it less attractive, but conversely mac people boasting about absolute security of the mac should make it more attractive. I think Mac OS X is inherently more secure than Windows, but we should definitely be very careful to source our claims with reputable people if we talk about it in the article. Dravick (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a very doubtful claim, see #Some sources I found from Google. --Philcha (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. That is _my_ opinion, and that's why it is not written in the article. Dravick (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Most of the issue with Windows operating systems was the fact that users logged in, and therefore ran, most applications as the administrator. In fact, before NT, there was no choice to do anything but. With Vista, finally, applications run in least priviledged mode. Mac OS X, having a Unix core, defaults to the least priviledged paradigm. Badly written Windows software causes headaches for users who try to make the switch to Vista, whereas Mac OS X developers have never been able to be lazy, they just had to deal with the paradigm. So, Windows was easy to gain control of, and combined with the large market share, a very prime target.Rawlogic (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have WP:RS to back that up? --Philcha (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I provided you wish some common knowledge and some terminology that you can google as a starting point. Also, I forgot to mention that Mac OS X is based on an open Unix core. The common thought is that open software is more secure due to peer review and development. Interestingly, some people are making names for themselves by reverse engineering (decompiling) Windows code, finding the bugs, and submitting the bugs to Microsoft and the rest of the world. Security by obscurity is weak. A little aside, to explain: The best crypto algorithms are the publicly publishes ones that have been tested by the community. Hide your key, not your algorithm. This is in effect the comparison between closed source such as Microsoft Windows and open source FreeBSD, on which Mac OS X is based.Rawlogic (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your "I provided you wish some common knowledge and some terminology that you can google as a starting point." I'm not a newbie asking for information, I'm a GA reviewer who happens to be an experienced computer consultant. Your point that Win users should not run as admins is relevant, but the artcile needs an explanation of any significant security differences between Win and OS X, backed up by inline citations of WP:RS. --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Nothing about reliability - which is an issue in the server market, and even non-techie Windows users know the meaning of "blue screen". How many patches per year?

Same here, I would say it is not discussed because the mac equivalent (kernel panic) scarcely happens. For one, it's not been years since my last kernel panic, and i use Mac OS X every day for all my activities as a computer science undergraduate. Dravick (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting and impressive, as your activities would have made you a candidate for IBM's Black Team. However see #Some sources I found from Google. --Philcha (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think my experience is particularly impressive. See [1]. And I don't get the reference to the black team. Dravick (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Things are different with Vista, so while Mac OS X may be reliable, I would skip the comparison. Vista now has the Black Screen of Death, but the main feature here is the fact that drivers run in the OS kernel on Mac and drivers run outside of the OS kernel on Windows (between the hardware and the OS). A bad driver can take down a Windows PC, even with Vista, whereas it will not take down Mac OS X, except for hogging resources. Vista's answer for x64 versions is to require all drivers to be signed (a stamp of approval by the developer and Microsoft).

Do you have WP:RS to back that up? --Philcha (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

As a cross platform developer, this is common knowlege, and also a starting point if you'd like to find references.Rawlogic (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As the vast majority of WP readers are not cross platform developers, your "common knowlege" is contrary to WP:V - you need to cite WP:RS Although I've worked with computers for decades, it's unclear to me how OS X' having the drivers within the kernel is an advantage in this context - I'd have thought it would be more secure to place drivers, which are produced under time-pressure to sell add-ons, and perhaps by outsiders, in a sandbox at a lower authorisation level than dispatching (selecting which task to run next) and both virtual and real memory manangement. --Philcha (talk) 11:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Nothing about whether non-Apple cards and peripherals can be added. The original Mac was was criticised for being "closed" (Apple components only) compared with the IBM PC. However third-party device drivers are now blamed for some Windows instabilities and security issues.

Good point. I wouldn't know what to say though. Dravick (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

So get Googling. --Philcha (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue is more that this is not a subject that interests me. If someone else wants to do that, fine. Dravick (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Third party devices and cards can be added. Macintosh provides detailed instructions for driver development, even down to PCI and PCI-X interfaces.Rawlogic (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a good start. Are there any notable non-Apple cards and / or peripherals? --Philcha (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• The article includes criticisms of the usability of various Mac OS X features (notably Aqua), but no comparisons of its usability with other pc OSs.

In my experience, comparisons with other OSs always degenerated and were removed. Dravick (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

By "always degenerated and were removed" do you mean edit wars? WP:V and WP:RS are usually a good opening move, and after a couple of rounds you start thinking about a reference to WP:ANI for WP:DE.

See #Some sources I found from Google. --Philcha (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, it is my opinion that comparisons between OSs are a bad idea. If someone else want to do something with that, I don't mind again. See here as an example. There used to be a mac vs windows page too, but was deleted here. Dravick (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the critique of Aqua actually notable?Rawlogic (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

In the WP:NOABILITY sense, yes, as it was written by a recognised usability expert. Whether it's important enough to warrant much space now that Aqua has been supersed is a separate question. --Philcha (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Nothing about email apps and very little about web browsers - as far as I can see Safari get only a few passing mentions in section "Versions", and nothing about alternatives or pre-Safari browsers (Safari was introduced in 2003 with OS X 10.3).
• In fact very little about apps at all, e.g. the words "spreadsheet", "word processor" and "game" do not appear at all. Let's face it, apps are what sell computers.

So, what are the popular apps on Mac OS X? What apps sell the Mac? I believe that iMovie and Final Cut sell Macs.Rawlogic (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS? --Philcha (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Nothing about ability to inter-operate with Windows and Unix / Linux machines. OK, I'd expect email and the Web to be no problem, as these are governed by global standards - but does it work out in practice? And what about exchanging "spreadsheet" and / or "word processor" files?

I think as of 2009 this is mostly a non-issue. I would argue it is as hard to exchange a spreadsheet between two computers with different versions of windows as it is to exchange between a mac and a pc, or mac/linux, or any combination. Some problems arises sometimes, but if standards are followed it works. Dravick (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree - file sharing is no big problem for Win users as they can e.g. make Excel etc. save in the formats of earlier versions, and I always save WP files as .RTF to avoid both version compatibility issues and macro viruses. Users of other OSs have a different and larger problem - how do they share files (both produce and accept) with the much more numerous Win users? --Philcha (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

They do the same thing... they save in the right excel format using openoffice or microsoft office for mac or really any other software (or in RTF, for that matter), and then send it to windows users with the same method (email, SMB, ftp, http, whatever). The point is, it might be very easy to share stuff between different versions of windows, but it is as easy to do the same between linux and windows or mac and windows, at least in the present. Maybe it used to be different. Dravick (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Dravick. File formats are not much of an issue. Many formats, even if proprietary, are well documented. Microsoft formats are not, but OpenOffice seems to manage. TCP/IP is platform independent. Macs at the office can browse my file shares, and vice versa.Rawlogic (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS? --Philcha (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It is my opinion that most of those subjects are not covered because they are not really issues, and as such, it is just not really discussed by reliable sources. It would be interesting if someone found such a source, though. On the other hand, in my experience adding comparisons between operating systems has always been a bad idea, leading to much edit wars. Dravick (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, see comments above and #Some sources I found from Google.

You probably think I'm being a real hard bastard. If it's any comfort, I apply the same standards of coverage to articles I work on, see for example Paleontology, Arthropod, Sponge, Alexander Alekhine, Wilhelm Steinitz. When I reviewed Sperm Whale, I made the article's supporters work pretty hard but also helped as much as a reviewer is allowed to, and they were really pleased with the outcome. --Philcha (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I still think I am mostly right. Of course, I also think that my opinion should not make its way into the article; there should be reliable sources cited. And no, I do not think that you are a hard bastard, I think the review process serves the purpose of the article being criticised so that it can be improved. And your criticisisms are much more precise than "too much text" and "not elaborate enough", which is really a good thing. On the other hand, I contributed to the article about subjects that interests me, so naturally we would need other contributors to complete the article. I will still try to implement some of the suggestions when I get a little free time. Dravick (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree that comparisons should mostly be avoided. Where do the comparisons end? The Mac OS X page shouldn't even know that Windows exists, except, perhaps, in a list of Alternative operating systems at the end of the article or a link back to the Operating systems page. What comparisons would be notable besides the appearance? Also open versus closed. I don't have to buy a PC from Microsoft to install the OS, I don't even need a PC. I can run Windows on a virtual server legally, but not Mac. I thought the versioning difference was also notable, especially with regards to updates. For example all updates for XP are free if you own XP. If you have Mac OS X, you can only get updates for your version of OS X (you have to pay to go from 10.4 to 10.5).Rawlogic (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can provide WP:RS for "For example all updates for XP are free if you own XP. If you have Mac OS X, you can only get updates for your version of OS X (you have to pay to go from 10.4 to 10.5)" that's a very significant point about the pricing and therefore prospects of success in the mmarketplace. --Philcha (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Some sources I found from Google

I think these will help with the issues I raised above:

Has any editor of this article looked for this information? Here are some things I found fairly easily:

• Re OS market share, Google found Mac OS X market share growth stumbles, which cites its source, which is available online - and that was just from the first page of Google results. OK, the footnote would have to include a comment on the methodology, but from such sources you can reconstruct trends going back to e.g. 2000.
• Comparison of Win, Mac & Linux - Mac, PC or Linux? Your next operating system, from first page of this Google so I expect there are other comparisons. Including "shootout" in the search string might help.
• Re usability, GraphJam: Usability by Operating System is amusing but not exactly WP:RS. More seriously, although Googling for mac windows linux usability ease of use got me nothing useful, Googling for mac windows usability ease of use got me Review: Mac OS X Shines In Comparison With Windows Vista, and you should look for additional hits from this search, and from searching for "mac linux usability ease of use" - as well as "mac usability ease of use"!
• Re apps, Review: Ubuntu Gutsy Gibbon vs. Mac OS X Leopard (P. 2) summarises standard Mac apps, which is a start. I suggest Googling for "mac os x app application".
• Cross-Platform Approaches from a Macintosh Perspective points out the commerical unattractiveness of the Mac's low market share to developers. (found in this Google Scholar).
• Re reliability, please check the hits in mac os x reliability crash panic patch. BTW you need to explain "kernel panic" and I remember an article that said it's the equiv of Win's BSOD - Goggle will find it fast enough for you.
• Re security and malware, the first results page of Google for "mac os x security" got me Mac OS X security myth exposed - and I'd have expected similar alert levels to Unix as OS X is Uni-based, although it surprised me that both showed up as not significantly better than Win XP. That search is almost certain to find other relevant sources. --Philcha (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
• Re price performance, Google for mac os X windows benchmark shootout got me a forum which got me Windows XP Pro versus Mac OS X both on the MacBook Pro. I'm sure there's plenty more on performance, and some may provide comparative system costs.

A hint: when starting a big project I start a "Sources" section in the article's Talk page, wiht sub-sections if needed. Each item has URL, title, date and a one-liner about why I thought it might be useful - see for example Talk:Evolutionary_history_of_life#Sources_and_snippets - but you shouldn't need anywhere near so many sources, as Evolutionary history of life is a monster by even my standards. --Philcha (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to discussion above

This article has tons of refs (which I haven't checked yet) and overall looks decently written. I'm a retired computer consultant and I should find this article interesting, but I don't - and not because I've lost interest in computer technology, in fact I've contributed to WP articles on the subject. I haven't used a Mac since 1991, and I'd like to know what using a modern Mac feel like and how it differs from the 32-bit Windows systems that I'm used to. But this article fails to answer the question, "Why should I care?" I think this is because it has major flaws in its perspective:

• It ignores the fact that there are alternative platforms. In the real world, Windows appears to own the desktop and Unix (especially Linux) appears to own servers - in particular Linux+Apache seems to dominate the Web server market, especially in the LAMP (software bundle).
• It ignores what matters to most users (in no particular order): availability of apps; price/performance ratio (TCO/performance for sophisticated users); ease of use, both normally and in installing new software and / or periperals; reliability; security.
• It ignores Apple's marketing strategy for the OS. For example does Apple regard Mac OS X as a general-purpose platform or as a niche product or as a lifestyle / aesthetic product? How successful is this strategy? This may seem an odd question for an article about an OS, but it has a bearing on what I think is the main issue - how far this article should try to speak to readers who are not committed to Apple computers and related products.

While the article on Windows XP has a lot of deficiencies, it at least tries to address some of the issues that matter to people who are not techies and are not members of a fairly narrow in-group. The "narrow in-group" focus of the Mac OS X article is highlighted by the fact that the great majority of cited sources come from Apple Inc. or organizations committed to Apple products - which also gives me reservations about the objectivity of the article.

I hope that within the next few days someone will step up to bring this article closer to the real world. If that happens I will be as patient and helpful as possible. --Philcha (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Gary King

I made a few edits to the article concerning the MOS. I removed the TOC limit per WP:ACCESS; also, frankly, if you feel that the TOC is too long, then the article needs to be better organized. Limitations should be embraced, not worked around. I also unbolded a bunch of bolded links per the MOS.

Regarding the many images in the "Versions" section, I'm not so sure that they pass as accepted non-free content. The images are more appropriate in their own articles—where they already are, so they should most likely be removed from this article. It would also help to remove all the whitespace between the sections, which at least for me I am seeing.

I agree. Done. Dravick (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The article can also still be organized better. The "Languages" section doesn't really do much; it could be merged into a single (long) sentence in somewhere like "Description". Gary King (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. I didn't want to include a incredibly long and boring sentence with all the languages, so I truncated the list from the source after 6. Anyone who wants to know more can follow the link IMO. Dravick (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

---

I reorganized the article a bit; I think sections should be used only when necessary, not simply as an organizational tool to make it easier to edit, so that the text flows better. Again, embrace limitations; working with less sections means that you really need to think as an editor how to best organize the information, rather than sticking something that stands out into its own section. This makes for many small sections. Now, some more issues:

• On another note, I've marked a few batches of text with the {{fact}} template as unreferenced; several paragraphs are also unreferenced, so they need to be cited. Please do so.

I see you have tagged the "finder criticism" and "dock criticism" sentences for fact. However, these references used to be there, but were moved in the respective article. So now I don't really know what to do, should I just copy-paste some (or all?) of the references from the linked article? Dravick (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't actually marking the criticism sentences but rather the descriptions of the Finder and Dock. I removed the criticism mention; I don't think they belong in this article. The Feature section should be light and be an overview of the features, not mulling over pros and cons, which should be left to other articles. Gary King (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind, but for the record, a criticism section was first added when the neutrality of the article was questioned. Then gradually they were moved to their respective articles (finder/dock), and now the last trace of it is being removed. Dravick (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk about the features in the "Features" section in a neutral manner then it shouldn't be a problem. Just describe what they do, not how good they do it. Gary King (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Some web references are missing access dates, which they need per WP:CITE/ES.

Done. Dravick (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Gary King (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me know when the needed references have been added. Gary King (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey all, a lot of recent copyedits and issues addressed. Reviewer, what's the overall status of this GAR? Cheers. Nja²⁴⁷ 09:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

For starters, there are a few citation needed tags. Gary King (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I am failing this nomination. It has gone on for a month and a half; the article has seen significant improvements since this review began, but the article still has some more major work to do. Please take your time to work on the issues mentioned, and renominate the article when you believe that it is ready. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)