Talk:System 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Good articleSystem 6 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 23, 2008Good article nomineeListed
April 29, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

Untitled

If memory serves, 6.0.6 was BRIEFLY released with the LC (etc) but withdrawn almost immediately for being buggy, replaced by 6.0.7 I have no reference to go by, so I will not edit the main page, but can anyone else corroborate this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.40.172 (talk) 04:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Am I the only person who is personally affronted by seeing ANYTHING relating to Wikpedia on a 10+ year old Mac, long before it existed? I'm not sure why, but it seems like a violation to me. Dan 19:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to say? I don't understand, sorry. —
Wackymacs 19:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Dan... wow, you must be a very sensitive soul to be so affronted by such a minor thing. Perhaps the screenshot at Commodore 64 will also similarly offend you, or perhaps even more so, since that machine is even older than the Mac. Is the degree of offence linearly proportional to the time between the inception of Wikipedia and the date of the machine's release? If so my scan of some words about Wikipedia printed out on punched cards may send you apoplectic. Seriously though, what is the problem, exactly? I don't see it. Graham 02:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Apple allows users to download copies of their old operating systems on their web site. Would a link to these downloads be useful on the old System pages? TMac 01:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's officially System Software 6 not System 6.

I've gone and changed the all references to "System 6" to "System software 6" (as well as moved this article to that name) as that is the official name Apple used to refer to this version of it's Mac operating system. Only with "System 7" did Apple omit the word software in the title. System 6 technically refers to a version of the system kernel (also known as the system file). While I realize that many people simply use the name System 6, I think we should consistently use the official name Apple used. --Cab88 19:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that? The screenshot in the article says "System: 6.0.8", not "System Software: 6.0.8". In in the list of open apps below, the system is listed as "System", not "System Software". Peter S. 23:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I preferred it when it said System 6. Apple generally called it System 6, not System Software 6. Yes its the official name but its longer and doesn't tie in well with the System 7 article and links. You could have simply added the longer name into the lead of the System 6 article and left it at that. —
Wackymacs 06:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
The name "System Software" actually refers to the combination of at least two system file types, the system file (a system kernel) and the finder file. "System Software" also refers to any extensions, control panels, printer drivers, system utilities, etc. that are included on the "System Software" install disks. The "About the Macintosh Finder" window displayed in the screen shot is actually indicating that the computer has finder file version 6.1.8 and system file (or system kernel) version 6.1.8. if you follow this link [1] you will see they indeed refer to "System Software 6.0.3" not "System 6.0.3". --Cab88 08:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What are you trying to prove here? I already said to you I know the official name is System Software, but it is the longer name generally not used. We should call it by the name generally used, which is System 6, and simply put in the lead that it is also known as 'System Software 6'. —
Wackymacs 08:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
My comments where more directed at Peter S. and anyone else confused by the screenshot shown on this page. I should have placed mu comments right after Peters to avoid the confusion. --Cab88 20:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Problem with "System 6" and "System Software 6" is that they are both not very desriptive titles. Tell somebody those titles and thy probably don't have any idea that there is an Apple connection involved. How about "Apple System 6" (or "Apple System Software 6")? Peter S. 11:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, who said we have to know exactly what it means from the name? There has been a huge dispute over putting the Apple name with the product name for article names - its a tricky one. —
Wackymacs 12:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
I did some research and it does seem Apple also used the name "System 6" as an alternate name for "System Software 6". If their agreement that we should go back to system 6 then I am ok with that. --Cab88 20:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I say we should go back to 'System 6', its shorter - more generally used, and fits in with 'System 7'. —
Wackymacs 08:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah, I support that. Peter S. 11:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, since nobody commented on it anymore, and it looked like we reached some sort of consensus, I've moved the page back to "System 6". Peter S. 01:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good move. Raptor007 (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failed GA

here
for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to
    reliable sources): c (OR
    ):
    The main text of the article is quite well sourced to various trade publications. However, the table of release dates is utterly devoid of sources.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    As a one-time System 6 user, I know that there's way more to the system than this article states. The page should probably go into slightly more detail about concepts such as icons, the Desktop, applications so that a reader who is unfamiliar with the Mac OS can get a more complete understanding of the system. Also there's nothing at all on such aspects as Font/DA Mover, Control Panel, desk accessories, etc. — yet there's a whole paragraph on MacroMaker, which I've never even heard of (and I still own at least three System 6 computers).
  4. It follows the
    neutral point of view
    policy    .
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have
    suitable captions
    )    :
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Still needs more detail about the actual user interface (buttons, desktop, dialog boxes, etc.) and the various pre-bundled programs such as the Font/DA Mover, etc. Looks like a good start though.

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA, again

here
for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to
    reliable sources): c (OR
    ):
    Every section looks to be very well sourced, including the tables.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    My main concern of insufficient weight on the GUI has been addressed. I think that now, all the major aspects are well covered.
  4. It follows the
    neutral point of view
    policy    .
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have
    suitable captions
    )    :
    I know that System 6 operated on some color systems, and would like to see a color System 6 screenshot if possible. Otherwise, the images look just fine.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Kudos to
    User:Wackymacs
    for their fast turnaround in the overall improvement of this article. All of the concerns from my last GA review have been sufficiently addressed to the point that I believe it should pass GA criteria now.

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

System 6.0.8 doesn't exist in all languages.

It should be mentioned that in many non-English languages, System 6.0.7 was the last released version. I'd do it myself if the article wasn't protected... -- 77.7.165.35 (talk) 09:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers. —

Talk to my owner:Online 07:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

PowerBook 140/145

According to the PowerBook 140 page, System 6.0.7-J is supported on the PowerBook 140 and 145, but not 145B. This is not backed up by Mactracker, nor is it sourced.

But I am curious if it is true. It is possible that Apple put some system enabler for the PB 140 series for 6.0.7, since I know it took awhile for 7.0/7.1 to get ported to Japanese (it wasn't instant back in the day).

I don't know who is correct, but I'd like to. 73.90.174.250 (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:System_6&oldid=1203776102"