Talk:Mac OS X
The encyclopedia entry should be under the full product name, not the casual abbreviation. --TBH 12:44, 10 January 2008 (MST)
- I think either way works. The company even says "mac" in their own commercials and on their boxes. --Mwn3d 12:53, 10 January 2008 (MST)
- Since languages support environments rather than computers or companies, perhaps this link should be named Mac OS X instead. After all, there is no "Apple Computer". The corporation runs no code, and Apple made many incompatible computers (Apple ][, Mac OS Classic, Newton, Mac OS X). --IanOsgood 10:13, 11 January 2008 (MST)
- I agree that OS is a better focus than company name. The page should be named Macintosh OS X. --10:27, 11 January 2008 (MST)
- Disagree on name. Everyone in the industry calls it "Mac OS X", including Apple. All references I could find here on Rosetta Code also use the abbreviation. --IanOsgood 11:12, 11 January 2008 (MST)
- OK! I give up. :) --TBH
- Disagree on name. Everyone in the industry calls it "Mac OS X", including Apple. All references I could find here on Rosetta Code also use the abbreviation. --IanOsgood 11:12, 11 January 2008 (MST)
- I agree that OS is a better focus than company name. The page should be named Macintosh OS X. --10:27, 11 January 2008 (MST)
- Since languages support environments rather than computers or companies, perhaps this link should be named Mac OS X instead. After all, there is no "Apple Computer". The corporation runs no code, and Apple made many incompatible computers (Apple ][, Mac OS Classic, Newton, Mac OS X). --IanOsgood 10:13, 11 January 2008 (MST)
Merge with Mac OS?
I reviewed this page and Mac OS (yes, I wrote that one), and I think that perhaps the content here should be merged into the other one, with my info on older versions given in a "pre-X" section or something, and then changing this one to a redirect (and changing the current redirects appropriately). If that sounds good, I'm willing to do it. -- Eriksiers 21:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- I'll upvote that. --Mwn3d 01:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. —Donal Fellows 09:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Done. -- Eriksiers 15:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. —Donal Fellows 09:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Disagree. As I said above, Apple and the rest of the industry call it "Mac OS X". The old OS (and its simulator) is called "Mac OS Classic". But I guess I'm too late into this argument. :) --IanOsgood 20:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- My reasoning is based on personal experience. In the geeky places I frequent, both on- and offline, if a person mentions "Mac OS", it's generally understood that they're talking about either OSX, or the entire Mac OS line in general. (Context rules all.) To talk about pre-X versions, one would say "pre-X Mac OS" or "classic Mac OS", or refer to a specific version (i.e. "OS 8" or "System 6" or whatever). -- Eriksiers 21:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Agree, but reluctantly. Technically speaking, Mac OS X is Mac OS X, and Mac OS is Mac OS. However, with the obsolescence of Mac OS and its virtual disappearance from the market and the attentions of programmers, people (notably those not old enough to remember Mac OS) looking for and considering programming resources will be thinking along the same lines that Eriksiers observed. For supporting analogy, one doesn't normally include Win16 in discussions of writing for Windows, or even Windows 9x, for that matter. --Michael Mol 23:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Funny thing is, I don't even own a copy of OSX (newest version I have is OS 8; kinda hard to run OS X on a 68k Mac) but I do still use Win16. -- Eriksiers 23:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- Win16 is primarily used in embedded environments these days, isn't it? --Michael Mol 03:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- No idea. I haven't done anything professionally for several years. I use Windows for Workgroups (under VMware) for testing 16-bit support in a very few of my toy projects. -- Eriksiers 14:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know enough about your projects to make the appropriate queries, but I'm now extremely curious... --Michael Mol 16:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't have very many GUI projects, actually, and most I haven't bothered porting to Win16. EEShell2 has a 16-bit version in (slow) progress -- by request, even. (It's technically usable, but not quite what it's supposed to be. I'm having problems with certain things in Win16 that are dead easy in Win32.) I also wrote a cheat program for the old DOS game wp:Eye of the Beholder (video game) several years ago that started as Win16, but was moved to Win32 before long.
- (I also use the same VM for testing my DOS stuff in "real" DOS, so I don't have to reboot.) -- Eriksiers 17:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- You might find Win32s to be helpful. --Michael Mol 20:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- I had considered it, but the request was specifically for a 16-bit version. [shrug] I'm not worried about it, really. My priorities definitely don't include trying to get Win16 stuff working, and AFAIK the Win32 version does work with Win32s. -- Eriksiers 21:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- You might find Win32s to be helpful. --Michael Mol 20:06, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know enough about your projects to make the appropriate queries, but I'm now extremely curious... --Michael Mol 16:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- No idea. I haven't done anything professionally for several years. I use Windows for Workgroups (under VMware) for testing 16-bit support in a very few of my toy projects. -- Eriksiers 14:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Win16 is primarily used in embedded environments these days, isn't it? --Michael Mol 03:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Funny thing is, I don't even own a copy of OSX (newest version I have is OS 8; kinda hard to run OS X on a 68k Mac) but I do still use Win16. -- Eriksiers 23:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)