Misplaced Pages

Talk:Mac OS X Leopard: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:34, 23 July 2012 edit97.88.6.178 (talk) →Support status for Mac OS X Leopard← Previous edit Latest revision as of 11:20, 28 January 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,432 edits Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(30 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}} {{Talk header}}
{{macprojectarticle|class=B|importance=high}} {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|
{{WikiProject Apple Inc.|importance=high}}
{{archivebox|auto=yes}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| archiveheader = {{tan}}
| maxarchivesize = 175k
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 5
| counter = 4
| algo = old(365d)
| archive = Talk:Mac OS X Leopard/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Archive box|auto=yes|age=365|units=days|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}}


== 10.5.9 Sorbet Leopard ==
== Info on iCal Dock Date Wrong! ==


I've heard of an unofficial version of Mac OS X 10.5 called ''Sorbet Leopard''. Maybe include some info about Sorbet Leopard in the article? (Or maybe create a separate article about that subject?) ] (]) 16:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
The wiki page reads: "The icon also reflects the current date even when the application is not running. In previous versions, the icon would remain at July 17th until the application was run." This is not correct.
:A quick Google Search found , but that's not much of a ], and the references it gives are on Reddit and MacRumors forums, so not exactly reliable sources, either.

:I didn't see any official site for it. There seems to be enough talk about it to indicate that it's not just a hoax (i.e., a big troll by multiple contributors), but not much in the way of details. My ''guess'' is that, ''if'' it exists, it's probably somebody taking a Leopard release, tweaking the open-source parts from the equivalent Darwin release, and releasing that, but that's just a bit of ] (if a quick guess even qualifies as "research") on my part, so there's no chance that I'd put that in an article.
In Leopard, the iCal dock icon does indeed update it's self, however in Panther the iCal dock icon would update and remain updated provided the user launch iCal once a day. When Tiger came out, this feature was for some reason removed, causing the icon to revert to July 17th when iCal is exited. All Leopard did was re-enable this feature, and make the icon auto update without having to launch iCal.
:I'm not inclined to say anything about it in the article without reliable sources. ] (]) 20:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
] 05:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

==Title Change Needed==
I was searching for this and it took me quite a while to find it. I would suggest changing the name to "Mac OSX Version 10.5 "Leopard" " this will make this page easier to read. (I cannot find how to do this though). Earlier I madea page called ] which had a link to here and now redirects to hear. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:No other OS X version page has the cat name in it, and people have managed to find them. Note that if you just look for "Leopard", it takes you (as it should), to the page for ]s, but that page points you to the ], which has a link to the page for 10.5. The same applies to the page for ]s and the ], the latter of which links to the page for 10.4; the page for ] is a disambiguation page which links to the page for 10.3, and the cats for 10.0, 10.1, and 10.2 have disambiguation pages that point to the OS X pages. ] (]) 18:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

:There is something called a ] as well. Use it to create as many aliases of the title as you want. --] <sup>]</sup> 07:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

::: So does tha mean I could make a few redirrects here? I will go do that.

thanks --] (]) 12:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

== Better Image for Leopard Packaging ==
I Just found an Image of the Mac OS X Leopard Box in Higher Resolution. I'm not experienced when it Comes to Uploading Pictures, So if Anyone Knows how to, here is the Link: http://www.curtsheller.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/leopard-box.png --] 19:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

== Universal release ==

The article claims that Leopard is a universal release (wikilinking to ]) but the universal binary article implies that universal binaries are only handled by Mac OS X, meaning that Mac OS X would have to already be running in order to start Leopard. Also, the source given for the claim that Leopard is a universal release just calls it a "universal operating system" appearently in the sense that it is both 32-bit and 64-bit. - ] (] | ]) 22:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

:Universal binaries "are only handled by" OS X in the sense that other OSes don't support that mechanism. Some of the universal binaries that are handled by Mac OS X are themselves ''part'' of Mac OS X. The support consists of:

::1. support for booting universal-binary kernels (/mach_kernel);

::2. support for loading universal-binary ];

::3. support for launching universal-binary userland code with the ] calls;

::4. support in the run-time linker for loading universal shared libraries and plugins;

::5. universal forms of shared libraries in OS X, so that the libraries a particular universal executable image requires are available for all processor types.

:The first of those is part of the OS X booting architecture; that architecture is platform-specific (for one thing, the PowerPC Macs use ] while the x86 Macs use the ]), so that part isn't universal. Once the kernel is up and running, that gives you the third of those, and that, in combination with support in the user-mode portion of kernel extension loading, gives you the second of those. The run-time linker, which is loaded and run with all dynamically-linked binaries, gives you the fourth of those, and the fifth is a function of the way the OS X binaries are built.

:An additional reference for the fact that all the binaries are universal (except perhaps for binaries that don't make sense as universal binaries, such as the binaries that implement ]) would be useful. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== new screenshot ==

could someone take a real screen shot? (i.e. not using a camera)
the current screenshot is blurry.
] (]) 23:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

: The current screenshot wasn't taken with a camera. It was just rescaled, because fair use images have to be smaller scale. See ] ] (]) 23:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to say that, but... you guys at wikipedia are even worse than MPAA, RIAA, and all that stuff... regarding copyright law, yeah, sure, you have to reduce the screenshott or else Apple you sue the crap out of you... get real... you are just hurting the people... you just can't see that... <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 12:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Seriously, if you're looking for screenshots, look around online. This is Misplaced Pages, the 💕, not Misplaced Pages, the free source for images of copyrighted software that we're not legally allowed to host. If you have a problem with that, write your local lawmakers and complain. Sheesh. --] (]) 00:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

== Reviews? ==

What would be really good (it's what I came to this page looking for in fact) would be a summary of the reviews in magazines and authoritative websites. The criticism section has some useful points, but by itself it is disjointed from the rest of the article. At the moment the article is basically a feature list which could have been compiled simply by looking at apple.com and no other sources. ] (]) 23:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

:Also under the critism section why isn't there more? EG: many of the bugs like copying files, incompatibilty etc etc. It needs more outside sources and a general expansion. -]] 00:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

some bloggers comments about the icon hardly constitute a note in the criticism section. actually most all these criticisms are about the look, not the functionality. im a pc user, and im sure if we wrote a note in the xp/vista sections every time a blogger didnt like the new mouse or minimize icons, the list would never end. editors please consider removing these links in place of a more representative criticisms sections.
--] (]) 02:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

== system requirements ==

Does Moc OS 10.5 run on non-apple-systems w/ Intel-CPUs? Does it run on AMD64-CPUs?

I ask this question, because all of these systems use the AMD64/Intel64 architecture, which is also used on Intel-Macs. --] (]) 07:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

:Talk pages aren't really for discussion of the topic of the article, they're for discussion of the article itself, so this isn't really the place to ask the question, but see ] and the for information on that (the short answer is "Apple doesn't intend it to do so, and make efforts to prevent it from working, but some people have managed to make it work anyway.") ] (]) 07:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

== Criticisms ==
I think that 3 of the 5 criticisms in this article are irrelevant. The first about Logitech incompatibility was just a temporary lack of Leopard support on the part of Logitech; this is not an OS flaw: it only needed newer software. Besides, it was very temporary and doesn't apply anymore. Then, the one about the Leopard GUI, is just nitpicking and a case of tech-culture shock. Finally, the one about Apple being "smug" is hardly an issue with the OS; some people find the icon funny, others think its just stupid, but its not so much a criticisms as it is a comment. Think about it. ] (]) 20:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

: Criticism stemming from culture-shock is a tricky thing to decide if it's worth mentioning as criticism. On one hand, yes, it's actually valid, because it is still inherently a value judgement. On the other hand, if the repetition of that criticism wears off over time, then it is probably not deserving of a permanent spot in the section. I tend to think that a "Reception and sales" type of section, like we have with ], would be a better place to discuss comparatively temporal criticism like the visual changes in the UI, or the blue-screen stuff that happened. In terms of completeness, it is a part of the history of the subject, just as other temporal details are, like the fact that the operating system was delayed a couple of times. <span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;"> ] ]</span> 22:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
::Good idea. Though I think the general content of a Reception and sales section here would differ vastly from the one in Windows Vista, because, well, people seem to generally like it (like the changewave study which shows about 81 percent of people who really like it) (though it did spot in PC World's tech disappointment list, too, hehe.). ] (]) 23:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

== using blogs as references ==

ok, for the criticisms bit i think using a blogger as a source for saying things about "the reflective icon bar" is ridiculous. for nearly everything in the world can be criticised like that. i can say i dont like the colour of the ford logo, and way it looks old fashioned. i can say i dont like how the windows logo has four colours in and looks child like, and post it on my blog. doesnt mean it can be put into an online encyclopedia? i removed this criticism and it was reverted. its purely cosmetic, i think actual criticisms with merit (not just OPINIONS), should be included. i personally love the new style and design of leopard, why cant i put that on the wikipedia page? because thats my opinion. so why should someone else, of no greater or less merit than me put their opinion on? any thoughts would be welcomed cheers guys this is my 1st discussion lol :)
:Citations must be reliable. ] is the policy in question. Almost all blogs fail ]. --] (]) 00:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

:: Keyword here is "almost"; the blog of a notable commentator or expert, whom we are using as a source for an opinion or critical commentary, is generally valid. ] addresses this. The key is to make sure that the person we're quoting has had their prior work published in reliable publications. In the case of Rory Prior, who made the comments about Leopard's UI, he's a software developer and has been quoted and interviewed by other publications. Whether someone who is in the business of developing user interfaces for Mac OS X, is a qualified "expert" when it comes to commenting on Leopard's user interface, is perhaps a discussion worth having. All I'm saying is that the fact that it's a blog isn't the important detail; who the person writing the blog is, and in what context, are the vital details. <span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;"> ] ]</span> 16:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

::: Putting blog references in the middle of a factual section, especially without parentheses, looks out-of-place and unprofessional. I stopped short when I saw the first blog mentioned, not only because it was a personal blog, but because I'd never even heard the name of the person who wrote it. Geeks abroad may be familiar with these random strings of letters, but the rest of the world couldn't care less. These need to go in a separate "Criticisms" section so they don't disrupt the flow of the article's factual content. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Application compatibility==
I really don't know what this section is doing here. Is there anything unusual about old versions of programs not working with new versions of operating systems? If there is less version-to-version software compatibility for Tiger to Leopard as there was for earlier versions, this needs to be clearly stated. Otherwise, its no different from saying something like "Microsoft Word 1.0 no longer works with Windows Vista". (Windows Vista has very poor compatibility with old programs, worse than was the case with XP or Leopard, and that is clearly stated, rather than listing programs.) I think this section needs to be removed or re-worded, because now it just gives the impression that if you buy Leopard, you won't be able to use software. ] (]) 19:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

: It's there because it's correct, sourced, and likely of interest to a large percentage of users. The comparison to Word 1.0 is inappropriate, because Word 1.0 came out in the mid-1980s, and nobody uses it any more. If Word 2003 (or XP or 2000 or 97) was incompatible with Vista, that would be a much different story, but they all work fine. (Also, people at Microsoft has talked repeatedly and at length about the extent to which Microsoft goes to make sure older applications comtinue to work). The typical age of software that the article is claiming is no longer supported by Leopard is two to three years, and in some cases there aren't any free updates that provide Leopard compatibility.

: The first responsibility of an operating system is to provide a platform that runs the user's applications, so application compatibility is a valid and important topic for us to cover. <span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;"> ] ]</span> 19:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

: Sorry but that comparison is just awful. Word 1.0 came out in 1983. How the hell is that anywhere close to the same thing as saying "Final Cut Pro 4.5 (released April 2004) and iDVD 6 (released January 2005) ... are no longer supported."?

: Aside from that I generally agree. The section needs to be re-written or removed. What the hell does "no longer supported" mean anyway? Does it not run at all? Do certain features not work on Leopard? Do they run fine but fail to install or vise versa? Or is Apple simply saying, "if you have problems, don't come complaining to us"?

: Also what do we mean by "installation ... issues"? Does that mean these won't install at all? Or may only install when certain conditions are met (full moon, sacrificial goat, etc)? What does "stability and reliability issues" mean? Are these programs unusable, or do users just have to deal with random occasional problems? In other words, is it "don't bother even trying" or "remember to save your work regularly" or somewhere in between? ] (]) 19:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
::Forgive my extreme example of Word, but yeah, you get the idea. There are plenty of popular programs that didn't work with Vista, which met a lot of criticism, but that was largely taken care of by the software makers, and individual programs aren't listed. This section in the article, with is own section and specific wording, is confusing. It should be integrated perhaps into the Criticisms section, specifying that ''past'' versions of many programs aren't compatible, and not attempt to list every program since that would seem to exclude all the semi-popular, un-listed programs. But really, "a number of industry standard applications that do not work under Leopard" and "Creative industry applications no longer being supported under Leopard include" can seem to refer to the programs themselves (including future versions) and not just old versions. ] (]) 21:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
:Again, without actually knowing what Apple, Adobe etc mean this section is worse than useless. Do we have any idea what Apple means when they say they "do not support" these applications? Do we have any idea what Adobe mean when they say "issues"? ] (]) 21:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
:As an amusing tangent re Althepal's comments: whilst I couldn't find anyone who's tried to run Word 1.0 on Vista, I did find a showing, among some other old software, NCSA Mosaic, and ''Visicalc'' (1979, for those who've forgotten) running on Vista. I actually wouldn't be at all surprised to find that Word 1.0 ran perfectly fine. -- ] <small>(])</small> 17:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

== Builds ==

In Tiger the builds were different between Intel and PPC. If this is no longer the case, it should be mentioned in the article. --] (]) 23:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

== Irrelevant Criticisms ==

3 of the 5 criticisms are out of date so wouldn't it be better to change them from Criticism to Reception? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: Since when did criticisms have a best before date? ] (]) 15:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

== Stacks List View ==

I think the image that showing stacks should also include List View. As List View is an addition to Mac OS X Leopard 10.5.2, we should let people know that there is list view as well. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 10:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

== Anil Dash ==

Can someone explain why he's so important that his criticism belongs here? --] (]) 00:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

: When someone makes a blog post, and then a bunch of other sites all point to that blog post doesn't that indicate that the blogger is seen as significant? Also that criticism of 10.5 was quite common when the icon was discovered, I don't think we are linking him as if he was the only one making the criticism, just that his post on the subject was perhaps the most prominent. ] (]) 12:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

::"When someone makes a blog post, and then a bunch of other sites all point to that blog post doesn't that indicate that the blogger is seen as significant? " No, actually, I'd argue it doesn't. It means they got to a topic first and someone popular linked to it, and it spread. A blog posting that becomes popular is like a sneeze that becomes an epidemic. I received dozens of links for a post on a security problem in Time Machine, and I'm the very last person to think that post should be used as a reference. That's not bitter grapes; seriously, don't use it! The only complaints I've ever seen the blue screen icon are Anil Dash posts and reactions to it that mention his post. Are we really that desperate to come up with a Criticism section that we need to link to with low quality blogsphere rants? --] (]) 18:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

:::I'm sorry but I don't understand. Taking your example: Apple co-credited you for finding the flaw, and your posting explains the problem clearly, if we mentioned that flaw on Misplaced Pages wouldn't your blog post be the obvious reference? On Dash's blog posting, doesn't he have a point. On my own network I have some non-Windows devices (FreeBSD server, ADSL router, etc) that are illustrated on my Macs with BSOD monitors. The message does seem to be: non-Apple devices == unreliable.

:::Having said that, if you want to remove it from the article by all means go ahead. ] (]) 21:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

:::: And I'll restore it. The criticism is valid, and the critic is notable enough to have their own Misplaced Pages article. <span style="color:blue;font-weight:bold;font-family: Monotype Corsiva;"> ] ]</span> 22:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

::::: No, I'd rather discuss it. :) There's two things I don't understand here. The first is: Why is this criticism notable enough to be mentioned here? It's an icon. A few bloggers complained about it, but most are going to yawn. And the second is a bit like it: What, if anything, qualifies Anil Dash as enough of an expert on icons that his opinion (and it's just that) on them is notable enough to be worth mentioning here? I'm just wondering if we're using this as an excuse to pad out a criticism section in a way that doesn't really make sense. Maybe if this was a Reactions section, it would make sense: it would make sense that the requirement for that would be fame, rather than merit. But I think a lot of those other points are valid criticisms, and reactions would probably lead down the wrong road. (Additional: And I'm fine with this, as long as it has some sort of explanation, other than... "He's a famous blogger, and we needed more in that section.") --] (]) 00:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"The criticism is valid, and the critic is notable enough to have their own Misplaced Pages article." Actually, Anil Dash's page is under discussion, as far as whether or not he's notable enough to have his own page. It goes without saying that if that article's ever taken down for that reason, this criticism goes immediately. Even without that, it's a pretty weak critique compared to things such as "the firewall system is a downgrade from previous OS systems" or "you get a blue screen of death trying to install this if you've ever used a logitech mouse". So, not only is Anil Dash's notability in question, his criticism is also much less technical, and much less important. This is an article about Mac's OS, not Mac's principles and ideologies. A criticism that says "the company appears smug" has no place in an article trying to be objective and talking about purely technical issues. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Usage on unsupported hardware ==

Although Apple stated that Mac OS X would not run on Intel-based personal computers aside from its own, a hacked version of the OS compatible with conventional x86 hardware has been developed by the OSx86 community and is available through file-sharing networks such as BitTorrent. (from the ] article) ] (]) 14:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

== Misplaced Pages and Leopard ==

Well, just today, I discovered that right-clicking on a word not only brings up the dictionary, but Misplaced Pages. I wonder what version? The most recent one? i can't figure out if this is cool, annoying, or just plain scary. ] <small><sup>] ]</sup></small> 18:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

:Using Misplaced Pages as a source depends on the preferences set in the Dictionary application. Pretty sure it's pulling the article over the web when you look for it; Dictionary is MUCH faster with Misplaced Pages turned off. Not sure if this would be too self-referential for the article, though. --] (]) 06:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
:The version of Misplaced Pages grabbed is the current version. Post another comment on this page, then search for it in Dictionary.app. --] (]) 00:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

== 10.5.2 also available on third-released retail DVD ? ==

The version history section mentions that version 10.5.2 is "also available on third-released retail DVD". Is that true? I just bought Mac OS X directly from Apple last week on Friday (Aug. 1st 2008), and I got version 10.5.1. I know that it is possible that they got a storage warehouse full of 10.5.1 DVDs that they need to get rid off, but am just curious. I'll try to find an article somewhere about this. --] (]) 19:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
:I've removed that statement. The official retail DVD has indeed currently 10.5.1 on it. By googling a little, I have found that there exists an unofficial retail DVD with 10.5.2 (that DVD is also designed to allow installation of OS X on a non-Mac machine). —] (]) 08:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

== "Criticism"? ==

I'd like more justification for why my edit was reverted. I really don't see in what this incompatibility issue could be called a ''criticism'' of Mac OS X (at least, the references given do not present the issue as a criticism—I mean, as a criticism ''of Mac OS X v10.5'', of course, not of Logitech or Unsanity!) Or perhaps do I not have the same notion of " "criticism" as the author? Moreover, it is really an unimportant historical detail (again, I should precise: unimportant for an encyclopedy, not necessarly for those who went across the issue), unless Mac OS X has so rarely problems that this one should have a special mention in a paragraph named "Unusual Incompatibility Problem".—] (]) 19:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:I agree. ]'s justification for restoring the item included "And the paragraph makes clear it was mostly due to a out-of-date haxie", but instead that makes it clear that it doesn't belong since it's not a criticism of Leopard, and the fact that the problem had already been fixed in APE (not Mac OS X itself) indicates that it was ''purely'' a 3rd party issue. If the item really needs to stay it belongs in some sort of new distinct "Compatibility Issues" section, but I don't think that's necessary. ] (]) 20:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

::I've had about a year with Leopard and it's not good in terms of fault tolerance. I've had hangs, crashes and all kinds of problems. I'm pretty sure that this isn't Apple's fault alone but why does the system respond by failing just because of a driver problem? The thing I can't seem to understand is why Leopard response is utilizing 100% of the CPU (kernel_task) and severely hampering other UI functionality. The system doesn't fail enough to crash completely but it's unable to recover properly and renders itself pretty useless. This is very much a problem with Leopard. I've also had many USB issues that resulted in the other subsystems failing as well (like the blue tooth which connects my Mighty Mouse). Clearly it's not the right way to go about problems at system level, on top of this the system refuses to restart, it will just wait indefinitely. Fault tolerance is not Leopard's strongest selling point. ] (]) 14:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

::I'd like to add while third-party applications and/or drivers can cause major havoc and in it self can very much damaged the OS. Mac OS X falls short in being fault tolerant when handling problems at the system level. While problem with third-party stuff can be considered not to relate to Leopard, consider the impact of their failure on the system overall. I'm think Windows really has the upper hand here and that Apple with Leopard has some serious issues to deal with. The plans for Snow Leopard sounds about right for the moment but Mac being free of bugs and compatibility issues is just an out right lie. And it's deserves a lashing there of, despite it might work well for many others. ] (]) 14:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

::: Please read ]. Your personal experiences aren't suitable content for Misplaced Pages. If you can find reliable sources that make the same claim, then this might be worth discussing. ] (]) 14:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

== Boot Camp ==

I have been able to run Windows 7 RC( build 7100) on my MacBook Pro but for some reason I had to submit it three times as someone on Misplaced Pages believed I was fooling with them.
I should also add that it is possible to run Ubuntu, Yellow Dog and other variations of Linux on Boot Camp with a few modifications, so there is no need to believe Windows 7 RC cannot run through Boot Camp! <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 02:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:We need ] for an addition of something like that, and ] (stating what worked in your particular situation) is not allowed. If you have a reliable source (apple would be a good one), then you can add it. Otherwise, personal experience is not a reliable source. --]] 02:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Very well, I hope Gizmodo is a reliable enough source:
http://gizmodo.com/5132325/how-to-install-windows-7-on-your-mac-using-boot-camp <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
By The Way here's more:
http://www.simplehelp.net/2009/01/15/using-boot-camp-to-install-windows-7-on-your-mac-the-complete-walkthrough/ ] (]) 03:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC) <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: Boot Camp doesn't support Windows 7. http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/bootcamp.html If it did, all the tutorials wouldn't conclude with things like "if your X doesn't work do this", "if Y doesn't work do this", etc. Apple will update Boot Camp to include Windows 7 drivers, at that point we update the article. ] (]) 17:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
actually, it does, considering 7 and Vista have similar source codes, and even though apple doesn't offer tutorials, you can (unofficially) install Windows 7 on a Mac, as I have stated before. ] (]) 17:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
:It'd be best to say it doesn't 'officially' support Windows 7. From experience it does, though Apple doesn't say so. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
: (1) You can install Windows 7 on a Mac without using Boot Camp.
: (2) Boot Camp doesn't include a complete set of Windows 7 compatible drivers. It includes drivers that work with Windows XP and Windows Vista. That is why all the tutorials conclude with caveats. "If X doesn't to this other page and follow these instructions". "If Y doesn't work go to this forum posting and try this which worked for some random anonymous guy". Etc etc.
: When Apple adds Windows 7 support to Boot Camp they will update their page to mention Windows 7. The same thing happened with Windows Vista. At that point we update this page to mention Windows 7 support. ] (]) 05:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

== Move other Mac OS X articles to fit Snow Leopard's convention ==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

The result of the move request was '''pages renamed'''. ]''']''' 01:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

----


] → ] — The consensus on the ] talk page was that the move from ] should not be reversed, on the grounds that the operating system is marketed as such, even though Apple elsewhere refers to the operating system as v10.6. Based on the box art and marketing pages of earlier releases ] , ] , and ] , it is clear that this convention is not new and should therefore be applied to these operating system versions as well. Indeed, these versions do not even prominently display the version number as part of the box art, only as a subtitle. However, ] is referred to as "Mac OS X v10.2" and "Jaguar" on the publicity page and as "Mac OS X v10.2 Jaguar" on the front of the box. Previous releases of Mac OS X were not commonly referred to by their great cat code names . Therefore, I believe that it is most appropriate for these three articles to remain as-is. —] <small>(]|])</small> 17:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
* ] → ]
* ] → ]

:I believe in consistency when possible. Background: I think when Apple made Mac OS X 10.0, they were thinking in terms of previous versions of Mac OS Classic (like they make 7.0, 7.1, and then move on). OS X developed into a new line of operating systems, so instead of distinguishing them by a number, they began focusing on their codenames. Now, when naming articles on Misplaced Pages, the articles should typically be named what people most commonly refer to the subject. People do refer to all of these operating systems by their version names, but you won't hear someone say "I upgraded my Mac OS X 10.4 and 10.5 copies to 10.6." They'll typically use the codenames. And going by the same logic in the move of the Snow Leopard article as well, 10.3 through 10.5 should be renamed to their codenames. But I could take that one step further, and say that people actually call even older versions things like Puma and Cheetah, especially Jaguar, more than their version numbers, and so those should also be named accordingly. By my final opinion? Apple goes around officially calling all their operating systems things like "Mac OS X v10.6 Snow Leopard," titled in full. (See the footnotes of http://www.apple.com/macosx/refinements/ for example.) I believe we should do the same as this covers all bases and could easily allow for consistency. I mean, let's face it. It's called both things, a lot. Those full titles would be clearest to the reader as well, and of course redirects would still be in place. ] (]) 06:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

::On the page you linked, the operating system is referred to as "Mac OS X Snow Leopard" 6 times, "Mac OS X v10.6 Snow Leopard" 3 times (all in footnotes), and just "Snow Leopard" a further 20 times. In the cases where it's identified by version number, this is always done to distinguish it from "shipping Mac OS X v10.5.8 Leopard", including revision number. To compare "Mac OS X Snow Leopard" with "Mac OS X v10.5.8 Leopard" or just "Mac OS X Leopard" would have been unclear.
::I agree that consistency is preferable, but the code names for 10.0 and 10.1 were never widely publicized, and I believe we should follow Apple's naming conventions rather than renaming the operating systems retrospectively. I wouldn't object to using "Mac OS X Jaguar" rather than "Mac OS X v10.2", but from the web archive it looks like the version number was more commonly used by Apple. —] <small>(]|])</small> 21:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

*'''Support''' : I agree with IntrigueBlue that articles for Leopard and Tiger should be renamed. The archive for the panther page seems very compelling as well. You can see more of my reasoning and others thoughts on such a move scattered though out ]. ] (]) 02:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
*'''Weak Support''' Apple made it clear that the new one is officially Snow Leopard. These others are not as clear, but at the very least they seem more common. '''<span style="border: 2px Maroon solid;background:#4682B4;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">] ]</span>''' 21:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
*'''Weak Support''' moving 10.3, 10.4, 10.5 articles to their codenames, because that would follow the exact same logic as the "Mac OS X Snow Leopard" consensus. But I would still prefer that all versions are moved to their full names like "Mac OS X v10.2 Jaguar" -- I like clarity and consistency, what can I say. I see a couple other people agree with me, I think there should be a vote on the various options. ] (]) 00:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
:: If you can see from the Snow Leopard ], I suggested such using an extended name with version at one point, but think that it actually fails the test at ], since Apple mainly uses the animal names by themselves, the usage of a "full name" such as Mac OS X 10.5 Snow Leopard tend to occur only on support pages, where the exact version number might be specified to avoid confusion. Note that Apple is inconsistant in using "Mac OS X '''v'''10.5 Leopard" vs "Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard", see included the title of the window, as one of the counter point pages that actually uses the extended from with both spellings. As seen in the archive pointed to by INTRIGUEBLUE most of the pages just used Mac OS X Leopard or Leopard. ] (]) 03:56, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' move articles to codenames. Support, moving all Mac OS X articles to full name aka, Mac OS X v10.0 Cheetah, etc. ] (]) 03:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
*'''Weak Support''': "Leopard," "Tiger," "Panther," etc. are exactly what many people label them to be: codenames. They are not the official names of the many versions of Mac OS X. But, I understand that the codenames are what most people recognize the different versions as, so renaming them to these names is not as controversial as some believe it to be. While I support including codenames in the article titles, I do not, however, support deleting the version numbers. Instead, they should have complete names, e.g. "Mac OS X v10.5 Leopard," to reduce ambiguity between the codenames and versions. ] (]) 02:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support''': It would maintain consistency, especially considering that Snow Leopard's "popular name" isn't a new thing for an OS X release; from what I can tell, at least the previous 1 or 2 versions followed this tradition as well. As far as including the version number in the title - pretty much nobody actually names it by that full name. They either say "Mac OS X v10.6" (with a reference to the name "Snow Leopard"), or they call it "Mac OS X Snow Leopard". If we're picking a name for the pages, it should follow one of those two formats (not "Mac OS X v10.6 Snow Leopard"). --] (]) 19:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support''' for consistency' sake. Perhaps in the future we could consider moving to names which combine both, as suggested by several above. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->
===Consistency===
So I understand the reason why 10.3-10.6 were moved to their codenames, but it seems strange that 10.0-10.2 still go by version names since it's kind of like a shades of gray scenario of more-like-codename or more-like-version. Unless, of course, you '''expect''' to see a discussion of Mac on some forum and people are going, "I upgraded to 10.0 when it first came out, but it kind of sucked until 10.1. 10.2 was a good upgrade for me, but I really liked the upgrade to Panther. etc." Know what I'm saying? Lack of consistency is kinda weird, and IMO requires a very strong distinction in naming of versions, of which there is none. -] (]) 02:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

:The rationale is that 10.0 and 10.1 were neither marketed nor popularly known by their great cat code names. Mac OS X 10.2 is a bit more of a grey area as is mentioned above, but common use of the great cat names didn't arrive until 10.3 Panther. The Mac OS X article provides a ] of the naming history. I agree that consistency is a good thing, but there's no benefit in consistency for consistency's sake. —] <span style="font-size:smaller">(]&#124;])</span> 10:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
::It's not just consistency for consistency's sake. By having articles with different naming methods, it's basically saying that at some point Apple changed how they officially name their products, and without actual evidence (outside of box art) we really should not be making that statement here on Misplaced Pages. I see so many places on the internet where Snow Leopard is called 10.6 and so many places where 10.1 is called Puma, I don't see why we can't make them all "Mac OS X Cheetah" or "Mac OS X v10.0 Cheetah." ] (]) 00:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

==Requested move==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''

The result of the move request was '''not moved'''. ] (<small>]</small>) 07:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

----


] → ] — During discussion on the ], several people expressed a preference to using full names including version numbers, eg. ]. I disagree with this personally, but I think the option deserves discussion anyway. --—] <span style="font-size:smaller">(]&#124;])</span> 21:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]
* ] → ]

:'''Oppose''' (voting on my own proposal) As ] pointed out in the previous discussion, per ], all of the post-Jaguar articles should remain as-is since the operating systems are undeniably referred to more commonly by great cat name rather than version number + cat or version number alone. However, Jaguar is still a bit less cut-and-dried. The box art for all post-Jaguar versions states only "Mac OS X" followed by the code name. Jaguar's box reads "Mac OS X v10.2 Jaguar" , and previous releases don't use the code name at all in the box art, so I don't think it's appropriate to consider moving them. However, I might '''support Jaguar''', since it has yet to be moved and could benefit from the longer title. —] <span style="font-size:smaller">(]&#124;])</span> 21:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Snow Leopard, Apple almost makes almost no mention of its version number. No opinion on the others. '''<span style="border: 2px Maroon solid;background:#4682B4;font-family: Monotype Corsiva">] ]</span>''' 21:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - I think the full name would result in the least confusion and as version numbers, code names, and a combination are all commonly used (to varying degrees in varying circumstances) for all versions of Mac OS X. Support for renaming versions 10.0 and 10.1 as well. ] (]) 21:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' : Agree with ]'s summary, see also my comments on the previous discussions. ] (]) 00:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
*'''Neutral''' The codenames need to be in the title post-Jaguar due to their common usage, but that doesn't preclude including the version numbers also. Fine with either the status quo or adding the version numbers; just so long as we don't go back to ''just'' version numbers. --] ] 09:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' Shorter titles are always preferable so I really don't see any benefit from any of this. The titles are already commonly used and quite unambiguous. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->

== Recommended Retail Price at launch ==

I added the ] of ] but it was removed. This is why I added the info and why I think it should be in the article:

* I think it has some historical importance and it is interesting to see the RRP of previous OS/software titles. I looked for the answer to this in Misplaced Pages because I was doing some research into the prices of the previous versions of OS X.
* Was following the ] article which includes the RRP in the intro.
* I totally agree with Terrillja that "Pricing varies across the world, wikipedia is not us-centric nor is it a pricing guide." But ] is an American company that launches is products in America and suggests an RRP in ]. Because of this I don't think it's unreasonable to show the price in USD.

] (]) 02:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
:WP:NOPRICES. How's it notable?] (]) 05:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

== Is the screenshot really Leopard? ==

I question this. It looks a lot like V10.6. But seeing I bought my Mac after Snow Leopard's release, I'm probably wrong.iPadFanboy 05:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
:Yes, it is a screenshot of Leopard, because it still has the old iDisk icon in the Finder. Aesthetically, Leopard and Snow Leopard don't differ much though. The changes are mainly "under the hood". ]] 13:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

== Strange Text on page ==

Linux Mint OS X (version 10.5) is the sixth major release of Mac OS X, Apple's desktop and server operating rehash for Macintosh computers. Leopard was released on 26 October 1809 as the successor of Tiger (version 10.4), and is available in two variants: a desktop version suitable for personal computers, and a server version, Mac OS X Server. Steve from Minecraft stated at Macworld 2008 that over 9000% of Macs use Leopard as their operating system. Leopard was superseded by Snow Leopard (version 10.6). Leopard is the final version of Mac OS X to support the PowerPC architecture as Snow Leopard functions solely on Intel based Macs.

According to Bill Gates, Leopard contains over 9001 changes and enhancements over its predecessor, Mac OS X Turtle.

After researching this, Linux seems to be a condom factory in Russia.

What is this Linux you talk of?

I remember Mac OS X Turtle, a brilliant rehash. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 08:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Support status for Mac OS X Leopard ==

Has Apple <u>officially</u> announced that they ended support for Mac OS X Leopard yet?

I <u>cannot</u> find any news article on Google regarding the official demise of Leopard and someone edited the support status of Leopard saying that it is no longer supported. That was officially the case when Mac OS X Snow Leopard was released in late-August 2009 and the last official security update for Mac OS X Tiger was 2009-005 in September 2009 and Apple ended support for Tiger by the end of the month.

If you have any info on the support status of Leopard and whatever Apple has officially ended support for the product, let me know and I'll get back to you. ] (]) 16:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
:I'm not aware of any such statement. However, the ''final'' security update was released just this past week. Security updates had previously been the only remaining form of support for OS 10.5 Leopard for quite a while, like since about halfway through the OS 10.6 Snow Leopard period. So, this constitutes the end of a support cycle even without a formal statement from Apple. ] (]) 05:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
::Update: It seems that I was wrong about that being the ''final'' security update. Does anyone else have any input on this issue? ] (]) 01:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
:::Well, the users in question keep jumping the gun and reverting to "unsupported" in light of the fact that Apple has not made a formal announcement that they ended support for Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard. Leopard has not yet been officially declared "unsupported" yet.

:::It would be best to contact Apple and inform them whatever or not they have said that this is the last security update for Leopard and formally announced that they have ended support for the four-year old product.

:::If that happens, I do not expect much of a impact from PR channels regarding the official announcement of Apple ending support for Mac OS X Leopard. ] (]) 20:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

::::I have (once again) edited the article back to 'security updates only' and would appreciate if someone would stop reverting it back to 'unsupported'. I don't know if Apple will officially announce the end of support for Leopard, so I think a 6-month timeframe would be entirely reasonable to assume support has been dropped if no updates have been released in that timeframe. That's puts us around February 3, 2012. It initially showed 'unsupported' and then Apple came out with yet another update on August 3. Inaccurate or unconfirmed data decreases the credibility of Misplaced Pages. The security update released on 8/3/2011 goes to show that updates did not cease when Lion was released in July. Otherwise, we should mark "Windows XP" as unsupported as well since it too is only receiving security updates. Thanks! ] (]) 20:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)</span>

:::::Well, we're gonna have to wait until there is official word from Apple regarding the fate of support for Mac OS X 10.5 "Leopard". Windows XP will be supported until 8 April 2014 and by that time, we can predict that Mac OS X 10.6 "Snow Leopard" support to be long retired and the successor to Lion would have been made available for a while.<br><br>
:::::There has been no official word regarding the EOL of 10.5 right now, but it's totally unclear whatever or not there will be anymore security updates or support for 10.5 now that it is the third oldest release.<br><br>
:::::Whoever keeps reverting the support status to "unsupported" without providing accurate or confirmed data should rethink what they edit in this article, because it's really frustrating to see contributors seesaw (edit war) the support status between "security updates only" and "unsupported".<br><br>
:::::<b>Update:</b> I would like to make a final update that the latest Apple security update as omitted Leopard users and Apple has pretty much canceled support for Leopard and PowerPC Macs. ] (]) 17:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::<b>Update:</b>Apple has JUST released a major security update for Leopard, with regards to the Flashback malware, Java and Flash. ] (]) 23:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
::::::Seems to me that Leopard is not supported now, just because it received one isolated patch. I'm pretty sure Leopard has not received many security updates which Snow Leopard and Lion received. Does one isolated patch make it supported again? I don't believe so.] (]) 21:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

To the anon who is insisting Leopard is not supported anymore, . Tiger and earlier OS X are not present, but there before Lion's release -- if Apple is indeed dropping support for Leopard we have seen its support page erased from the website too.

Therefore let's check back on Mountain Lion's release date. If Mountain Lion is added on the support page and Leopard stays, then that would show that Apple still supports Leopard since otherwise they would remove it like they did with Tiger on Lion's release. --] (]) 04:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This whole thing is getting ridiculous! Apple states that they support two versions of OS X concurrently, the current version and the current minus one release. This means that Snow Leopard and Lion are currently in support. The patch released for Leopard was an out of band security update that did nothing to fix the holes in java on Leopard nor did it support Leopard when running on the Power PC platform. It does nothing but scan for and remove any traces of the flashback trojan found on a Leopard machine, then disables Java and old outdated versions of Adobe Flash player. To say that this is a supported platform is a fallacy. Apple no longer actively maintains Leopard as it is an old outdated OS, no new software is released for it, everything requires at least Snow Leopard or higher and that will probably change when Mountain Lion is released. To say that I am vandalizing the article is utter crap. It should also be stated that while Apple did remove the support link for Tiger on their main support website, if you do a quick search, you can still find that page as well as pages for versions of Mac OS going all the way back to OS 9! This whole edit war is getting ridiculous! I am not trying to vandalize anything, just simply trying to state a fact, Leopard is a dead OS! There is nothing more I have to say about this topic. I would kindly request that you cut this crap out and accept the facts of the subject! Thank You!

] (]) 08:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 11:20, 28 January 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mac OS X Leopard article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 12 months 
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconApple Inc. High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4


This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

10.5.9 Sorbet Leopard

I've heard of an unofficial version of Mac OS X 10.5 called Sorbet Leopard. Maybe include some info about Sorbet Leopard in the article? (Or maybe create a separate article about that subject?) Blacky the Bre (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

A quick Google Search found this page on the Apple wiki on fandom.com, but that's not much of a reliable source, and the references it gives are on Reddit and MacRumors forums, so not exactly reliable sources, either.
I didn't see any official site for it. There seems to be enough talk about it to indicate that it's not just a hoax (i.e., a big troll by multiple contributors), but not much in the way of details. My guess is that, if it exists, it's probably somebody taking a Leopard release, tweaking the open-source parts from the equivalent Darwin release, and releasing that, but that's just a bit of original research (if a quick guess even qualifies as "research") on my part, so there's no chance that I'd put that in an article.
I'm not inclined to say anything about it in the article without reliable sources. Guy Harris (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Categories: