This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Apple Inc. Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. 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.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The code name for the Apple /// forms the first letter of the operating system of this article - "Sara." There are several references available that point to this spelling: ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]}

I've only been able to find a single reference online that calls it "Sarah." ^[8]

Can anyone help with anything more authoritative?

--JustSomeGuyToo (talk) 11:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I took a shot at changing the tone of the article from one of theory and conjecture to actual operating principles and technical detail in the spirit of WP:BEBOLD. I left some of the hyperbole in the "History and Conjecture" section, most of which still needs to be removed.

--JustSomeGuyToo (talk) 03:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

-- Please don't remove the "History and Conjecture" section, this information does have merit because it's of historic importance, and because it provides information not easily found elsewhere. Definately a keeper! 81.229.55.3 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC).Reply

Not being easily found elsewhere is exactly why the information needs to be deleted if it isn't traced back to its original sources — otherwise, it will eventually get grabbed up by someone with lesser standards and become repeated legend, with any errors that might be in it. All of that needs to killed before it breeds unless it gets citations that are verifiably from reliable sources. Without that, there is no way to see that it provides factual information rather than fiction that will just pollute later research. After all, the section even has the word "conjecture" in the heading — sounds like original research rather than reliable sources. --Closeapple (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

This entry talks a little too much about David Fradin. It reads like revisionist history in its attempts to prove the merits and successes of the Apple /// and the heroic role David Fradin had in keeping it alive. Could really use some neutral fine-tuning. Jimbonator (talk) 11:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

It appears the additions are by Davidfradin (talk · contribs). I chopped it down a bit and tagged a some other things that someone may be able to find verifiable third-party reliable sources rather than get deleted soon also. Even if it's verifiable, it sounds like it's more about the Apple III in general than SOS. Per WP:PROVEIT, if someone doesn't show backing from a neutral source for any claim, it can be removed at any time. --Closeapple (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply