Talk:MacOS/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Supported platforms including PPC -- a mistake?

I can't tell if this was intentional or an oversight, but as of right now, the info box states supported platforms includes PPC.

Is this an oversight or was it on basis of the Rosetta emulator? Does supported platform refer to hardware or software platform? (Wasn't clear to me.) Thoughts? Dsf (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This article covers all the versions of Mac OS X, including those for PPC. The Mac OS X v10.6 article correctly shows only x86 and x86-64. MFNickster (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I see. Thanks! Dsf (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

RFC: Mac OS X is not Based on UNIX

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Mac OS X is based on NextStep: [1], and NextStep is based on code (subsequently rewritten) from BSD and Mach. I dare anyone to show me a single module of AT&T code in Mac OS X. I imagine they will have a hard time doing so, because OS X is written in objective C, not C, like UNIX. It also uses a PostScript display API. The agreement between the OpenGroup and Apple relates to licensing: [2]. It is not a certification that OS X is based on UNIX. In fact, Z/OS is also listed on the OpenGroup's site, even though Z/OS cannot be more different from UNIX: [3]. Windows also has a POSIX API, by the way. Should we call it UNIX, too? Unless I am soon given convincing evidence to the contrary, I will remove the ridiculous claim that OS X is based on UNIX from this entry.--Validbanks 34 (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Well according to this [4], OS X is it's own branch off of the Mach 3.0 kernel, which gets roots from BSD 4.2, which gets roots from 2BSD & UNIX 32v. According to this same timeline, only OS X Server are direct decedents of NextStep, which still based of of Mac 2.5 & BSD 4.2. This article talk about OS X's BSD Unix roots.[5] The Apple Developer's site even addresses UNIX Development on OS X.[6] And you are going to disregard the ref already in the article that Apple even says it's built on UNIX.[7] The Unix wiki article even addresses OS X in it. I fail to see how OS X does not have strong UNIX roots. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ¤ • ¢ 02:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Validbanks, I'm assuming on good faith that you are not the same guy who argued this same point further up on the page. We certainly don't need to open this discussion again. NextSTEP was also based on Unix; in fact, that was touted as a major selling point back in 1988 when it was introduced. NextSTEP and Mac OS X are not a separate family, they are derived from UNIX code and UNIX designs, and are part of the UNIX family tree. Furthermore, most of the low-level system is not written in Objective C. MFNickster (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Gu1dry: No, Mach is a microkernel, whereas BSD uses a monolothic kernel. And Darwin is now a hybrid kernel. MFNickster: I have used almost every operating system in existence, so trust me when I say the following. Only a noob would ever think that BSD and UNIX are the same thing. BSD was written at Berkley and UNIX was written at Bell Labs. HP-UX, Linux, BSD, AIX, Solaris, etc. are all much more similar to System V UNIX than Mac OS X. Besides the characteristics mentioned above, the file system (HFS+) is unlike any other file system in use. Other non-UNIX characteristics include the use of file extensions and the bizarre file system layout. How is having a /Private/etc folder UNIX-like? Windows has a C:\WINDOWS\system32\drivers\etc folder, too. It must also be a member of the UNIX family, huh?--Validbanks 34 (talk) 03:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC) When NeXTStep was created, BSD was referred to as BSD Unix and contained AT&T code, which NeXT licensed. It was UNIX, and Darwin was later based on it. The fact that designs were changed and the modules rewritten doesn't change that history. MFNickster (talk) If I claim to be a member of a family, I should have at least a single gene in common with my supposed ancestors. Mac OS X has no UNIX genes at all. The code isn't there. There is no common DNA. The supposed relation is nothing but an illusion, and even if there were one, it could not be boiled down to a three-word statement: "OS family: UNIX."--Validbanks 34 (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Well, I think you're arguing UNIX purity for the sake of it, as if UNIX never can and never did change. I have no intention of slogging through all this again; please read the discussion at the top of the page titled OS X is not just UNIX based - all of it, including the hidden parts - and then if you have sound refutations of all the arguments and sources that support "UNIX-based," and if you can provide authoritative sources backing up those refutations, then you might be in a position to add a note to the article that the claim is controversial, and call for a vote of consensus on whether to change the "OS family" entry in the info box. MFNickster (talk) Unfortunately, I have no intention of compromising on this issue. The absence of a relationship is proof that it doesn't exist. It doesn't need proof to be evident. The only thing that must be proven is that something exists, not that it doesn't exist. Therefore, the claim that OS X is part of a UNIX family must be cited by a reliable source saying exactly that. Improperly-cited material may be removed at any time.--Validbanks 34 (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC) You must be trolling. Unfortunately for you, your claims must be verifiable and not original research. "This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." MFNickster (talk) 04:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC) The only person making any claims here is you. And your claim that Mac OS X is a member of the "UNIX family" must be proven. I don't intend on adding any claims to the entry. I will only remove improperly-cited claims.--Validbanks 34 (talk) 04:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC) So you say citations in the article & countless others in the talk, mean it's not properly cited. The only making any frivolous claims right now is you ([[User:Validbanks 34|Validbanks 34]). I, sir, think you need your head checked. All you rebuttals make no logical sense. I serious doubt you have any true knowledge of how OS X, BSD, Linux, etc really work. I would advise you take MFNickster's advice and read thru the full discussion above. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ¤ • ¢ 05:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Show me a statement from a reliable source claiming that OS X is a member of a "UNIX family." Marketing material from Apple and obscure web sites don't count. I cited a source above claiming that OS X is based on NextStep. The source was published by Addison-Wesley. I find it ironic that you would question my knowledge of operating systems. The only reason you people use Macs is because you don't want to be bothered with how your computer works. And I can see that attitude here. "I don't want to talk about my operating system. Just show me the button I press to check my e-mail." You probably can just barely turn on your computer to check your watch list, and yet you have the gall to claim that Mac OS X and UNIX are the same.--Validbanks 34 (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC) I'm not denying OS X is based of NextStep (I even stated the correlation of OS X with NextStep), but is NextStep based off of what? UNIX! *confetti* Who even stated I used only Mac? Because I never saw it. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ¤ • ¢ 05:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC) And NextStep used parts of BSD -- not UNIX. And I'm descended from Adam and Eve. That must mean I'm a member of the "human family," right?--Validbanks 34 (talk) 05:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC) If you're going to ignore evidence such as that I mentioned earlier (BSD was called "BSD Unix" when NeXTStep was created), then arguing is futile. MFNickster (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Do any of your sources state explicitly that Mac OS X belongs to a UNIX family? All I see is claims that they're somehow related. I don't see anything about a family, which is what the entry mentions.--Validbanks 34 (talk) 05:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC) No. Unless you have some new sources to bring to the table covering this debate, I think we're done here. Bye. MFNickster (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC) No. We're not done. I still have to remove that ridiculous claim in the entry. See you tomorrow.--Validbanks 34 (talk) 05:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Here is the current version of Apple's document supporting the statement that Mac OS X is "Unix-based": [8] There is nothing improper about it. I've updated the citation. MFNickster (talk) 05:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Note: guys, feel free to disagree and debate, but no personal attacks. Keep it civil. MFNickster (talk) 05:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC) This is obviously the same guy as before. He is making exactly the same mistakes: (paraphrasing) "Nextstep and Mac OS X are written entirely in Objective-C", "BSD is not Unix", "if it doesn't have a monolithic kernel it isn't Unix", etc etc etc. By discussing this issue with him all you are doing is wasting your time and keeping the troll entertained. Consensus here is clear. All the sources are clear. If the troll starts editing the article, ignoring all the evidence, his account will be blocked. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 07:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Hi, Alistair. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until there's evidence of sock-puppetry, but it is awfully familiar. MFNickster (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Let me get this straight: You're calling me names, and I'm supposed to be the troll? Every single statement you just said is BS. The sources are not clear. I am not a sock-puppet (although your editing patterns are indicative of a bad-hand sock). And I will remove that statement. Just because I agree with someone doesn't mean that I am that person. Is this making any sense to you at all? What's wrong with you?--Validbanks 34 (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC) I refer the honourable gentleman to my previous statement. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC) I still think the whole thing is ridiculous -- again. Dravick (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Multics Family Moved from Talk:FreeBSD  – and others: Talk:FreeBSD#Multics family Talk:NetBSD#Multics family Talk:Linux#Multics family Talk:Berkeley Software Distribution#Multics family Talk:Solaris (operating system)#Multics family Talk:SunOS#Multics family Talk:Nextstep#Multics family Talk:IBM AIX#Multics family Talk:HP-UX#Multics family Talk:Ubuntu (operating system)#Multics family Talk:Fedora (operating system)#Multics family --Tothwolf (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC) UNIX is based on Multics. So why don't we just say that it's a member of the Multics family? Why stop at UNIX (only three levels deep) when we can drill down four layers?--Validbanks 34 (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC) Cite? MFNickster (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC) [9]--Validbanks 34 (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry, where does that say UNIX is based on Multics? MFNickster (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC) OK. How about this one: "UNIX is based on Multics": [10].--Validbanks 34 (talk) 02:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC) That's a good reference. Now, applying your own logic, does UNIX (say, circa 1974) share any "genes" with Multics? Are you going to propose changing all the articles in the category Unix variants, or should I do it? MFNickster (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Yes. They share source code. And, yes, you can change all of them to read Multics if I can change all of the Mac articles.--Validbanks 34 (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC) On second thought, why don't you just replace all instances of the word UNIX in the Mac articles, too? No sense in killing two birds with two stones.--Validbanks 34 (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Hello?--Validbanks 34 (talk) 02:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Your source says that "features" and "ideas" for UNIX were borrowed from Multics; do you have any evidence that actual code was used? MFNickster (talk) 02:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC) But you said it doesn't matter that OS X doesn't share source code with UNIX. All that matters is that they are "related." I'm just trying to put myself in your shoes. Multics is also related to UNIX, and if Mac OS X is related to UNIX, then it must be related to Multics, right?--Validbanks 34 (talk) 02:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Uh huh. What happened to "I have no intention of compromising on this issue" and "I won't stand by while readers are given inaccurate information"? MFNickster (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC) I have no intention of allowing the word UNIX in that table row, no. But I realized today that the claim that Mac OS X is a member of a UNIX family is inaccurate in two ways--not just one. Not only is UNIX not the great-grandparent of Mac OS X, but it is wrong to name the supposed family after UNIX, when UNIX is derived from Multics.--Validbanks 34 (talk) 02:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC) There are a lot of articles in the "Unix-like" category. Why don't we suggest they all change to "Multics-like" and see what the consensus is? Any bets on the answer? MFNickster (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Sounds good. Would you like a JavaScript to automate the act?--Validbanks 34 (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Go for it. :) MFNickster (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC) OK. I'm kind of busy, so maybe you can finish this. You'll paste it into your monobook.js file. I wonder how we'd collect the URLs of all of the pages in the category, though: window.onload = replaceText; var articleViewURL = document.URL; var endString = "&action=edit"; var editURL = articleViewURL.replace("/wiki/", "/enwiki/w/index.php?title=") + endString; function replaceText() { if (document.URL.indexOf('action=edit') != -1) { var innerTxt = document.getElementById("wpTextbox1").innerHTML.replace(/UNIX/g,"Multics"); document.getElementById("wpTextbox1").innerHTML = innerTxt; document.editform.submit(); setTimeout(window.location = 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random',900) } else { window.location = editURL; } } Right now it just goes to random pages, though.--Validbanks 34 (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Sorry I can't fix it, since I don't do JavaScript. However, rather than editing the info box, the proper approach would be to post a new section on each talk page titled "Multics family" and saying something like "I propose that we re-categorize this article under 'OS family: Multics,' for the reason that Unix is based on Multics." MFNickster (talk) 03:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC) OK. Go for it, man.--Validbanks 34 (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC) I started with the major ones: BSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, Solaris, SunOS, and NeXTStep. Let's just sit back and see what people say. MFNickster (talk) 03:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC) All right! Sounds good. But you missed Talk:IBM AIX, talk:UNIX System V, and Talk:HP-UX.--Validbanks 34 (talk) 03:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC) UNIX System V doesn't have an info box, but I got the other two. MFNickster (talk) 03:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Wait. What about Linux? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Linux_distributions. They also have the "UNIX-like" text in their info boxes.--Validbanks 34 (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Oh, I forgot; I did Linux too. The score there is already 2-0 against. MFNickster (talk) 03:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC) No, don't worry about it, man. You're doing great. I think you stumped them with that last post. But Linux isn't an operating system. It's just a kernel. So you might want to hit the major distros at Talk:Ubuntu (operating system) and Talk:Fedora (operating system).--Validbanks 34 (talk) 03:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC) It's just wrong, I can also find other sources that say Unix is not "based" on Multics. The initial version Unix was written by the Multics developers [11]. Some of the Multics concepts were used in Unix (but not the code), but then Multics also borrowed other concepts in earlier operating systems. So using this logic, we then need to say that Multics is in the OS/360 family. Oh, and OS/360 borrowed concepts from even earlier operating systems, so every single operating system in the world is based on IBM 7090/94 IBSYS! It is reasonable to say that Mac OS X is based on Unix because some of the code in OS X is from BSD Unix. Raysonho (talk) 05:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC) OK. I think we have a consensus going that Mac OS X is based on Multics. I will change the entry tomorrow to match this belief. That's assuming, of course, that certain fascist elements on this site do not attempt to silence me first. I just got a message from someone who said that I'm being "disruptive." I guess free speech is kind of disruptive, but isn't it my right to edit an encyclopedia that anyone can edit? How can you have free speech if disruption is prohibited? I feel like I'm in Nazi Germany. Anyway, trust me on this one, guys. I'm actually a neutral party. I don't use any of the above operating systems. I'm a Microsoft fan, so I'm probably the only one who can see this without any sort of bias!--Validbanks 34 (talk) 06:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC) How can you say we "have a consensus going" when you are the only one who agrees with you? MFNickster (talk) 07:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC) I oppose the Multics-like movement. Majority of reliable sources have OS X based off of UNIX, with no mention of Multics. 「 ɠu¹ɖяy 」¤ • ¢  07:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC) My mistake. MFNickster claimed he agreed with the statement that it was based on Multics. Thus, I will simply remove it--Validbanks 34 (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Actually, I said you had a good reference, and proceeded to query other editors what they think of it. MFNickster (talk) 08:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC) But you said, "I propose that we re-classify this article under 'OS family: Multics' in the info box, for the reason that Unix is based on Multics." That contradicts what you just said.--Validbanks 34 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC). I suggested that you do it yourself; since you didn't want to, I did it on your behalf. MFNickster (talk) 08:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC) I suggest going through them all again and referring everyone back here. There are already fragmented discussions going on and really they need to be co-ordinated instead of perhaps twenty isolated discussions. I suspect you will have a hard time convincing the wider Unix community. There are more authoritative source than that cited, such as the Peter Salus book, which goes into considerable detail on this issue. Describing Unix as being based on or derived from Multics is probably overstating things: it is like saying MS-DOS is part of the CP/M family: it was an influence but not much more. In any case I would question whether Multics amounts to an OS "family". CrispMuncher (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC) I oppose suggested change to Multics. Three reasons; Debatable genealogy. If anything Multics is a "great aunt" of OS X. Focussing on this one OS is undue weight and ignores other ancestors in the family tree with equal or better claims. Overwhelming weight of cites available state that OS X is Unix derived. If this is disputed among reliable sources, then cite the opposing claims and let the reader decide. If there are no reliable sources to be cited on this, it is a non-issue and shouldn't be on the article. It is original synthesis. i.e. One cite says OS X is based on Unix, another says Unix is based on Multics, therefore OS X is based on Multics. A + B => C. Original Synthesis is not permissible. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Then, using that policy page as a guide, it is also original research to say that Mac OS X is part of a "UNIX family." All I've seen is marketing material from Apple that makes the claim that it is based on UNIX, not that it's a part of any family.--Validbanks 34 (talk) 18:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Where is the evidence that Unix contains Multics code? The one source I can see here simply says Unix is based on Multics in the sense that the guys who created Unix previously worked on Multics and a lot of the decisions they made in designing Unix were based on their experiences working on Multics. Where is there a single source that says Mac OS X has anything to do with Multics? How can you even suggest making such an edit given the blatant rule against original research? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Utter nonsense. I haven't heard of "Multics family of OSes" this is WP:OR at its best. man with one red shoe 21:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC) I suggest that Validbanks 34 (talk) is a troll and bad faith editor and should find somewhere else to peddle his self-indulgent time-wasting. 59.167.42.2 (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC) I also oppose this. There is no "Multics family of OSes". Multics was a mainframe OS, Unix is intended for both servers and workstations. It originally ran on the PDP-7. It was inspired by Multics but was intended as a smaller, faster OS for non-mainframe machines. Multics never had a "family" and Unix was never considered to be a part of this non-family. This whole discussion is a waste of time, started by someone who is apparently working only from text and not from experience. That's the only way a glaring mistake like this could possibly be proposed. Yworo (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC) But, surely, if we keep tracing back we'll find they all are based on original ideas from Colossus, and you can trace that back to some textile loom. And before that was the Abacus. Then there was the palaeolithic hand axe that started all this. So, I know, who can write some JavaScript to go through every single article and add a statement that the technology described is derived from palaeolithic hand axe... I think some people are winding each other up for some large-scale vandalism here. It's best stopped before one of them actually learns JavaScript, I fear. (I didn't link 'JavaScript' in case that gave them a head-start) --Nigelj (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Why are we allowing all of these tainted sources to be used as citations? None of them say explicitly that Mac OS X is part of a UNIX family. One of them is a brochure from Apple and the other is a licensing agreement between Apple and the OpenGroup.--Validbanks 34 (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC) You're splitting hairs - the family tree I posted above is certainly not a "tainted source"; it was compiled by Eric Levenez - a Unix "guru" who worked on kernel development. If "family" means a line of descendants with modifications, that is certainly where BSD, and NeXTstep, and Mac OS X belong. You still have not cited any sources to the contrary. Remember that Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources. MFNickster (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Who proofread his work? I only cite reliable sources that have been published by a neutral party.--Validbanks 34 (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC) You haven't cited anything that supports your POV. If you ever do, then and only then will you be in a position to argue. MFNickster (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC) You believe that I need to cite my claim that the aforementioned claim is improperly cited? I didn't know we needed citations to prove that something isn't cited.--Validbanks 34 (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC) No, you just need to provide something - anything - in the literature that contradicts the sources already given in the article, then maybe you can add a note about how a notable author/columnist/researcher disagrees with the categorization. MFNickster (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

License

The breakout box at the top of the article says that OS X has a "proprietary EULA" license, but I can't find a link to the license itself. 06:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.47.146 (talk)

Here it is: EULA, however I don't see any reason to link it in the article, it's not saying what the text of the license in in the infobox, rather what the type of license is.--Terrillja _talk 20:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Requested move of Mac OS X v10.3, v10.4, and v10.5

I have posted a request for the Panther, Tiger, and Leopard articles to be moved from eg. Mac OS X v10.3 to Mac OS X Panther. If you'd like to weigh in on the discussion, it is taking place here. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 06:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Stacks

This article doesn't appear to mention Stacks. I was wondering where it would be appropriate to mention Stacks and place an image of Stacks with a fair-use rationale rationale for this article. --NerdyScienceDude ^{(talk to me)} 00:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

We have generally tried to avoid pictures so far, but go right ahead if you feel it's appropriate. Dravick (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that going into detail about a sub-feature of the Dock is the best thing for such a broad article. The feature was one of the major changes in Mac OS X Leopard though, so that's where it's discussed. Kinda like how Aero Peek is discussed in the Windows 7 but not in Microsoft Windows. Althepal (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I decided to place it in the article Dock (Mac OS X). There was no mention of it there, and it was already covered in the Mac OS X Leopard article. --NerdyScienceDude ^{(talk to me)} 14:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Good stuff. Just checked out the Dock article. I think it's funny how the criticisms there says that it's too large and that it only says the program name on mouse-over, two things that Microsoft adopted in the Windows 7 taskbar! Althepal (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Mac os x 10.7?

I'm wondering: Is there any information about an upcoming os x? (or any os made by apple)? did apple again conceal everything? I can't imagine mabdul 16:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, I forget where I read it so I can't link at the moment, but I read that some internet monitoring company reported computers logging on to sites with an OS code that if interpreted using Apples current OS numerical coding scheme translates to Mac OS 10.7. The site also said that the IP addresses of the computers running 10.7 matched up with known IPs from Apples headquarters in Cupertino. Which makes sense. So there is no official word from Apple, or any other details, but at this point it time it appears that it is indeed under development. I do think though that this isn't worth mentioning in the article. Its not much information, and what I had read only confirms what is obvious: Apple is going to make more operating systems. But when details from reliable sources come out, I'm sure they'll be added to the article accordingly.

Security?

I noticed Microsoft Windows has an extensive discussion regarding security, but nothing is here in this article. Does anyone think it would be inappropriate to add such a section to this article? ElBenevolente^(talk) 21:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The German article has the section, too. Should we translate it? --89.204.153.65 (talk)

I looked at the German article about Mac OS X security and it's not very informative, so don't even bother.

--King of Dreamers (talk) 07:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There should be some discussion of Mac security. It isn't invulnerable after all. 71.166.54.115 (talk) 20:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

GA nomination

I have nominated this article for GA. Everyone is welcome to make improvements to the article. NerdyScienceDude :) (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 14:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the review is a disappointment. Hekerui (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Mac OS X only programmed in C?

The resumé box says that Mac OS X is programmed in C. Isn't it also largely programmed in Objective C and maybe also C++? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.57.97 (talk) 08:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, Mac OS X is hugely in C, while the exposed APIs (i.e. Cocoa) are in ObjC, with C++ filling special tasks like some sound stuff or video stuff. Yes there is some ObjC and C++, but it is mostly insignificant compared to the parts in C. Dravick (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. When I was a compiler engineer for Apple ca 2000-05, I had occasion to look at most of the source files (if only to figure out why the compiler didn't like them), and I would say that at the time, no single language was predominantly in use. Lower levels coming from NeXT and BSD are all C, higher levels coming from Classic Mac OS are all C++, higher levels coming from NeXT are ObjC. The form of the API doesn't necessarily tell you the underlying languages - part of the tangle in /System/Library derives from Cocoa APIs calling into classic Mac C++ code for some services, which in turn call into Mach for various reasons. Some of the mid-level subsystems are huge, dwarfing xnu for instance. Stan (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Then again, I was never a compiler engineer for Apple. I was mostly thinking about the BSD and NeXT lower levels, but now I'm not sure I can guess right about how large that part is compared to others. Dravick (talk) 05:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I assume we agree to include C++ and Objective C into the box? GoldRenet (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Given that we don't seem to have a single reliable source on this, I'm removing it entirely. If someone finds a reliable source that we can cite, please restore and add the source. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, hard to say if a reliable source is even possible, I'm sure I'm skating on the edge of my confidentiality agreement by saying as much as I have... :-) Stan (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the source cited by User:Kkm010. For two reasons. Firstly the author of that source doesn't distinguish at all between Mac OS and Mac OS X. Secondly, he doesn't explain at all what he is using as sources and, as far as I'm aware, doesn't have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither the apple.com nor the Lextrait source are relevant - the languages supported by Xcode are for the benefit of external developers, internal developers don't necessarily even use Xcode. There's been a number of published interviews with Apple bigshots over the years, I'm sure at least one makes reference to OS X implementation languages, most likely around the 10.0-10.2 timeframe. Things might easily have changed too, I've been gone from Apple for over three years now; maybe they've rewritten all the C++ parts into ObjC! :-) Stan (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I Think the programming languages should be removed until we have good and reliable references. GoldRenet (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. The answer.com reference reads like it was written by a third-grader - "objective-C ... which is mac's version of C++" hahahaha... Stan (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Another good resource is Amit Singh's Mac OS X Internals[12] Given that Apple's materials indicate "The Cocoa frameworks are primarily written in Objective-C"[13], "the I/O Kit framework...is written in a restricted subset of C++" and "the Carbon interfaces are written in C" [14] I don't see any problem with listing C, C++ and Objective-C as (at least some of) the languages used to build Mac OS X. MFNickster (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Also: CoreAudio "Frameworks are implemented in C and C++ and present a C-based function API." http://developer.apple.com/audio/pdf/coreaudio.pdf] MFNickster (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent that you found that! The second and third reference you give (the one about Cocoa and the one going to the PDF about the technology overview of Mac OS X) seem to be enough proof to me. I wouldn't use the first reference, as that's from 2003 already, nor would I use the Core Audio reference as that's from 2001. GoldRenet (talk) 08:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The CoreAudio reference may be from 2001, but there is no newer version that I could find - it appears to be the most current available. MFNickster (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually reviewed my copy of Singh yesterday, and decided it wasn't a reference for the closed-source parts of the system; Singh carefully limits himself to describing only the sources of open-source pieces (for which IOKit is indeed an example of extensive C++ usage). The line about "Carbon interfaces are written in C" refers specifically to the public header files. As a reality check, just do this on a stock Leopard system: "nm /System/Library/Frameworks/Carbon.framework/Frameworks/HIToolbox.framework/HIToolbox | grep _Z | c++filt | grep ::". You should see about 9000 symbols that are clearly from C++ code. If you look at the whole symbol list, there are also a great many ObjC symbols, per my point above about how the different modules intermix code these days - especially ironic in this case, since HIToolbox is descended from the original Mac toolbox that was written in asm and Pascal. Stan (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I would remove all current references (apple.com/macosx/developers/; Lextrait and Answers.com --> that one is just too ridiculous :p) and replace them with two of the ones that MFNickster mentioned:

http://developer.apple.com/Cocoa/overview.html

As MFNickster mentioned, the above reference says that the Cocoa libraries are mainly written in Objective-C.

And better:

http://developer.apple.com/mac/library/documentation/MacOSX/Conceptual/OSX_Technology_Overview/OSX_Technology_Overview.pdf

I went through the document and I think it has enough statements that C, C++ and Objective-C are used for components of the Mac OS X-system.

Some examples of which some have already been mentioned by MFNickster:

"the Carbon interfaces are written in C";

"Core Animation is a set of Objective-C classes";

"Image Kit framework is an Objective-C framework";

"For the most part, the interfaces of the Core Audio frameworks are C-based, although some of the Cocoa-related interfaces are implemented in Objective-C";

"the QuickTime Kit provides an Objective-C based set of classes for managing QuickTime content";

"the Input Method Kit is an Objective-C framework";

"Although it is written in Objective-C, you can use the classes of the PDF Kit in both Carbon and Cocoa applications";

"It is written in a restricted subset of C++. Designed to support a range of device families, the I/O Kit is both modular and extensible";

etc.

Do we agree? GoldRenet (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Please correct me if I am wrong, but saying something has an Objective-C interface or something is an Objective-C framework or is a set of Objective-C classes, doesn't prove the thing is written in Objective-C does it? That just means you are supposed to use Objective-C to talk to it, right? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

That's right. However, it would be inordinately difficult to build the outer layer of an ObjC framework in anything other than ObjC, and in practice Cocoa frameworks are ObjC. The Darwin part of the system obviously uses loads of both C and C++, so all we really need is an interview with any Apple exec or senior engineer where they say that Cocoa frameworks are mostly written in ObjC. Stan (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Cocoa (API) article itself notes that the frameworks are "written in Objective-C." MFNickster (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. But the Cocoa overview on developer.apple.com specifically says: "The Cocoa frameworks are primarily written in Objective-C". Additionally and as I mentioned before, the Mac OS X technology overview PDF has two clear statements: 1) "Although it is written in Objective-C, you can use the classes of the PDF Kit in both Carbon and Cocoa applications" and 2) "Darwin offers an object-oriented framework for developing device drivers called the I/O Kit framework. This framework facilitates the creation of drivers for Mac OS X and provides much of the infrastructure that they need. It is written in a restricted subset of C++. Designed to support a range of device families, the I/O Kit is both modular and extensible.". GoldRenet (talk) 10:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, the developer.apple.com overview looks like a good source, no waffly words there. So we have cites for three languages, and can legitimately mention all of them, but *not* make any assertions about relative amounts of each. Stan (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

All right, just added the references! GoldRenet (talk) 08:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The Objective C runtime reduces all ObjC to C function calls. So anything Objective C is, at bottom, C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantergraph (talk • contribs) 13:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

And the original cfront C++ compiler emitted C code, so, with that compiler, anything C++ was, at bottom, C. That's also true of anything C++ when compiled by Comeau C/C++. And the C, C++, and Objective-C compilers reduce all C, C++, and Objective-C code to machine code, so anything C, C++, or Objective-C is, at bottom, machine code. It's not clear that any of that is actually interesting in this context, however. Guy Harris (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing interesting on wikipedia. This is just to waste time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantergraph (talk • contribs) 15:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Initial release

i searched the archives for this before asking, but..is there a particular reason the initial release in the infobox is listed as 24 January 1984 (1984-01-24), with the wikilink to mac os? to me this should conform to the standard set by other similarly detailed articles, as per Windows XP, Windows 7, etc., in that it should be the release date of os x, not the mac operating system in general. if someone wanted to know the initial release date of the entirety of windows, it can be found under the category box..same should go for the release date here (as in the table further down the page). Impasse 18:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Mac OS X is a different sort of OS than Mac OS, so I have changed it to the release of Mac OS X 10.0. You cannot compare the Mac OS (X) releases with the Windows releases though. I consider Mac OS X to be a series of OS'es on itself. If someone disagrees, feel free to discuss. GoldRenet (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussions from Marklar project

I am redirecting Talk:Marklar project here since Marklar project redirects here, so I have moved the following conversations here from its talk page. - EdoDodo ^talk 17:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

---

I changed OSx86's description a bit, the old version gave implications like OpenSuse's community edition - a commercial product being freely released to the people, which the Developer Transition Kit versions of OS X certainly are not. --Niteice 22:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Also - was Rosetta included all the way? I'm pretty sure QuickTransit has only been around since 2004, making it impossible for Apple to have it ready until they decided to switch. Someone with more knowledge on that (if any) should fix it. --Niteice 22:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know if the name a South Park reference to Marklar? Rehevkor 01:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Why nothing on 10.7?

Why is there no placeholder for 10.7? Also, the next release ought to be called Lion, since there is a lion on the poster for the October 20 event. That will likely not be the only tidbit of information of the next major release of one of the worlds most common OSs. Bonus pater familias (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Hold on your horses! The "Back to Mac" event was announced today, and there is nothing official yet. It is unclear that Wikipedia should talk of rumors. It would look pretty stupid (though admittedly unlikely) if the event is not about a new release. Ratfox (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't be talking about rumours really, as it is an encyclopaedia. They do seem to have confirmed that 10.7 will be previewed, but there's nothing but speculation about the name so far. As someone has pointed out on The Register, it could just as easily be panthera leo nubica, etc. Gkmotorsport (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Quite simply, WP:CBALL. Ms. Cleo doesn't work here.--Terrillja _talk 20:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Memory allocation limitation

Hey techies, i ran into this one at the Blender web site, where i read that "OSX only assigns processes a memory space of 2 GB", and "only uses the 2nd half of the 4 GB range". Where in the various OS X articles would this fit ? --Jerome Potts (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a limitation of non-Intel versions of Mac OS X: Mac OS X 10.0 up to Mac OS X 10.3, and Mac OS X 10.4 and 10.5 when run on PowerPC CPU's (as you probably know, Mac OS X 10.6 only runs on Intel CPU's). Intel versions of Mac OS X use the PAE-system, so a 32-bit computer can use more than 4 GB of RAM (this technique supports up to 64 GB). As a consequence I think (I'm not 100% sure) this not only gives all your running processes together more than 2 GB, but can even allocate up to 4 GB per running process.

The article you refer to is from February 2006, so I presume they use a PowerPC system, most likely a PowerMac.

Still, looking at the wider picture of 32-bit, this issue is not something specifically notable about Mac OS X in itself, but about 32-bit in general. Therefor, the way Mac OS X handles RAM on PowerPC systems would suit better on an article about the limitations of 32-bit processing. GoldRenet 15:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

PAE has nothing to do with how the virtual address space is laid out, it only affects how much physical memory a 32-bit x86 system can access. An OS using PAE could, for example, put kernel code and data into the upper half of the address space and leave only 2GB for user-mode code and data - and an OS not using PAE could keep the kernel code and data (or, at least, most of it) in their own address space and allow up to 4GB of user-mode code and data (even if there isn't enough physical memory for 4GB).

But, no, none of that is OS X-specific; Windows also puts the kernel-mode code and user-mode code into the same address space, and it can either split the address space into two 2GB chunks or into a 3GB user-mode chunk and a 1GB kernel-mode chunk, depending on a boot-time flag. I'm not sure what Linux does, but I think it might also keep the kernel-mode and user-mode code in the same address space; I don't know what Solaris, for example, does.

And none of this applies, of course, when running 64-bit user-mode code. Apple no longer sell 32-bit x86-based machines, and I suspect the only 32-bit x86-based desktop/notebook machines you can buy these days are netbooks - I think the only 32-bit x86 processors Intel sells are Atom processors and embedded x86 processors, and I don't know whether AMD sell any 32-bit x86 processors at all.

In any case, I don't think the information from that Blender article is of enough interest that it belongs in an OS X article. Guy Harris (talk) 20:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation! GoldRenet 08:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

and/end users??

Do you mean "Apple end users" here: "Mac OS X v10.6 is usually referred to by Apple and users as "Snow Leopard"." ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.199.181.214 (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

No. What it means is that Apple as well as its users use the name "Snow Leopard". GoldRenet 15:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Would "Mac OS X v10.6 is usually referred to by Apple and by users as "Snow Leopard"" be clearer? Guy Harris (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"Usually referred to" is a strange way to put it. It would be clearer just to say "Mac OS X v10.6 is named 'Snow Leopard'" or "carries the moniker 'Snow Leopard.'" MFNickster (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

That depends on whether the sentence in question is intended just to say "the OS releases have, in addition to a version number, a "big cat" name", or whether it's intended to say that and that the "big cat" name is what's usually used to refer to it. In the former case, "Mac OS X v10.6 is named 'Snow Leopard'" suffices; in the latter case, "usually referred to", or something such as that, should be used. Guy Harris (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, okay. In that case, it would make sense to say it is "usually referred to simply as 'Snow Leopard'," but that would be a difficult assertion to back up without a source. MFNickster (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

"second most active" needs qualification

"As of September 2010, Mac OS X is the second most active general-purpose operating system in use on the World Wide Web, after Microsoft Windows, with an 8.3% usage share according to statistics compiled by W3Counter."

It is seriously misleading to refer to "second most active... on the World Wide Web". It is only as a *client* OS that it is second most active. As a server OS, which arguably is the most important part of the WWW, it hardly makes the lists.

See, for example, the more correct "client" qualification in the usage share chart in the Comparison_of_operating_systems article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.214.178 (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I changed it to "Mac OS X is the second most active general-purpose client operating system in use on the World Wide Web". Guy Harris (talk) 19:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 209.244.4.106, 8 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} "An unnamed variant of Mac OS X powered the 1st generation Apple TV.[11]"

needs to be changed to

"The original Apple TV ran a modified build of Mac OS X v10.4 Tiger"

as per the wikipedia page for the Apple TV.

209.244.4.106 (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Unreferenced in the Apple TV article, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source. -Atmoz (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

...which means that the Apple TV article needs references for the claim; I've added tags asking for references. Guy Harris (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Is was Tiger. This info can be found from many reliable sources. How about MacWorld?

"On a software note, Apple TV runs a version of Mac OS X; version 10.4.7 Build 8N5107, to be exact." http://www.macworld.com/article/57029/2007/03/atv_hacks.html DavidRavenMoon (talk) 01:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Unix-based operating system

The article currently reads:

"...is a Unix-based graphical operating system..."

It would be more accurate and standard, in terms of operating system terminology, to re-phrase as:

"...is a Unix-based operating system with a graphical user interface..."

It is not the operating system that is graphical, but the *user interface* to it. (Hence, e.g. 'GUI').

In fact as, for years, most operating systems running on anything from smart-phone-sized computers upwards have one or more graphical user interfaces as standard it could be argued that the 'graphical' part is as superfluous in the context of modern computer descriptions as it would be to say that the OS supports a screen, a keyboard, a mouse, uses a windowing metaphor, etc. If the operating system *did not* follow the current practice then it *would* be worth referencing the deviation explicitly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.114.148 (talk) 08:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation (again)

I hate to stir up this nitpicky argument yet again, but who is Spencer Kelly? Is there any reason to take his word for it that "OS Ten is written OS X in honour of the fact that it is based on Unix"? Did he ever work at Apple? MFNickster (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Spencer Kelly is a presenter on the BBC's Click programme. I wouldn't trust anything they say on that programme. I'm afraid it is pretty much tabloid quality in its reporting. For example, their response to the age old Mac vs PC debate was to drop a Mac and a PC from a tall building and compare the results. Entertaining maybe, but not really informative. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 08:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Related to this discussion, don't you folks think the following excerpt is goofy? "The letter X in Mac OS X's name refers to the number 10, a Roman numeral. It is therefore correctly pronounced "ten" (/ˈtɛn/) in this context. However, due to the tenth version being the first to be based on Unix origins, and a reason for the Roman numeral to be used for the number 10 in its honour, a common pronunciation is "X" (/ˈɛks/)." It looks like it's been written by a couple of bickering teenagers, each trying to convince the other that his point of view is more correct. It's a lot of fuss about a very minor point.67.68.47.60 (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Very goofy, but in that respect it's not unlike a good portion of Wikipedia. My view hasn't changed; there is no need to tell people how to pronounce it - just note that the X is a Roman numeral 10. MFNickster (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we just see how Steve Jobs pronounces it, and use that as the 'official' way? Antonyh3 (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia policy is that articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources. MFNickster (talk) 04:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Either way ('ex' or 'ten'), I recently removed the IPA as unnecessary, and was reverted because the MOS requires the IPA. It doesn't, but reading it over, I can see how it could be understood that way. I don't think anyone really intended that the IPA should be used for initialisms, which can be explained more simply, but I've opened a discussion on the MOS page. — kwami (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"Mac OS X" vs. "OS X"

Has anyone noticed that Apple seems to have renamed "Mac OS X Lion" to just "OS X Lion", dropping the "Mac" prefix? Not sure what this means for the name of this article, but it might have to be considered. Take a look: http://www.apple.com/macosx/ --Samvscat (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing. Apple is certainly rebranding it as just OS X. However, at the moment, all the URLs on the Apple site still use /macosx/ (though /osx/ will redirect to /macosx/). I say, wait for Lion to come out in July and for the URLs to change on apple.com, and then rename this article along with the article for Lion. Since the boxes for all the previous versions of Mac OS X still say "Mac OS X" though, I don't think those articles should be changed. Althepal (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Apple's Mac OS X page refers to it only as "OS X Lion," but the navigation, URLs and site map still call it "Mac OS X." The official press release refers to it as "Mac OS X Lion," so I think the jury is still out on whether Apple is striking "Mac" from the name. MFNickster (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

John Gruber wrote an insightful post on this topic -- Apple Dropping the ‘Mac’ From ‘Mac OS X’? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottxbenson (talk • contribs) 16:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Apple, Inc., 17 June 2011

Please change the following:

Latest Unstable Release: Developer Preview 2

to

Latest Unstable Release: Developer Preview 4 Update 2 SpencerCsv (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ^Avic_ennasis @ 16:45, 16 Sivan 5771 / 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Unix-Like, or Unix-Based?

In the main description, it clams "[mac os x] is a Unix-based graphical operating system...", but under Decription it claims "[mac os x] is the most successful Unix-like desktop operating system on the web..." which is correct? Arkanoid0 (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the first question is "what is Unix?" Is it "any system derived from some version of AT&T's Unix code", or is it "any system that passed the test suite so that the Unix(R) trademark can be used with it"? If it's the latter, then OS X, starting with Leopard, is Unix, but wasn't Unix before then. If it's the former, well, maybe it's Unix, to a small degree, given the history of BSD.

Note, however, that any system that's a Unix system, in either sense given above, is also a Unix-like system. Guy Harris (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Ryandev14, 19 July 2011

Please change the release date of 10.7 (Lion) in the first table under the section "Versions" from July 2011 to July 20, 2011 because the specific date was announced during Apple's Q3 2011 Earnings Call, and the currently posted date is still vague.

Source: http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/earningsq311/

Ryandev14 (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Done added same ref as on the Mac OS X Lion page. Jnorton7558 (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Mac OSX Lion

Mac OSX Lion came out yesterday... the page is locked so I can't update it. Could somebody possibly update it and say that "it was released on the 20th" not "it is due to be released on the 20th"?

Thanks! Jji7skyline (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, it says “Because of this, the Dock no longer visually indicates whether an app is currently running.” which is no longer true. --87.237.64.235 (talk) 12:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Please update the current version

Osx 10.7 was released now.

• Please also update this sentence: "From its sixth release, Mac OS X v10.5 "Leopard" and onward, every release of Mac OS X gained UNIX 03 certification while running on Intel processors.[3][4]" as 10.7 does not, as of this writing, appear to be unix 03 certified, thereby falsifying the statement. See here: http://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/apple.htm Something less presumptuous and more precise seems called for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.86.176.163 (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

<Mac> OS X

Apple have removed the word "Mac" from an awful lot of their branding, now including the name of OS X. Apart from in the URL, http://www.apple.com/macosx/ never refers to Lion as 'Mac OS X'. This article should be renamed to reflect this. Iain Dawson (talk) 10:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The Apple press release announcing the availability of Mac OS X Lion refers to Lion as "Mac OS X". The article should continue to be named "Mac OS X" to reflect this. Guy Harris (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree; across their site, they appear generally to refer to the operating system as "Mac OS X" and the current version as "OS X Lion". Rostz (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, so let's wait to see whether Apple, in the future, starts consistently using "OS X" rather than "Mac OS X" (e.g., if the next release's press release says "OS X", and http://www.apple.com/osx/ stops redirecting to http://www.apple.com/macosx, and developer.apple.com/ speaks of "OS X" rather than "Mac OS X" throughout, and so on). (And if they do so, and go with "OS X", let's carefully update the page, which includes updating the names and contents of categories, templates, etc. at the same time, so that replacing "Mac OS X" with "OS X" doesn't leave redlinks etc., as happened with the recent change.) Guy Harris (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Nothing to wait and see. They've clearly moved away from Mac. Or did you really expect them to update their 1,000s of pages all at once? Seriously. Get a clue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.255.26.83 (talk) 02:54, 9 November 2011

If they've "clearly" moved away from Mac, why do they refer to the Java for Mac OS X 10.7 Update 1? I would expect them not to use "Mac OS X" in pages that were put up on or after the Lion release, such as the press release I cited, and the update note. Perhaps this is like "Macintosh" and "Mac", where, over time, "Mac" replaced "Macintosh", but, even if that will eventually be the case, it hasn't happened yet - they're still using "Mac OS X" as well as "OS X". Guy Harris (talk) 07:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

PPC Compatibility

The line: This release removed Rosetta, making it incapable of running PowerPC applications. Needs clarification, as it is still possible to use third party solutions to run PPC apps under Lion. Also, no source. 125.254.11.153 (talk) 05:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 December 2011

|latest preview version = 10.7.3 (11D24) |latest preview date = December 2, 2011 (2011-12-02)

Change this section to:

|latest preview version = 10.7.3 (11D33) |latest preview date = December 16, 2011 (2011-12-16)

Sources: 9to5mac, 13 hours ago

Nacho2150 (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Can you provide a URL please for the source. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 23:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Mac App Store Information

The Mac App Store was introduced as a free update to existing Snow Leopard users in 10.6.6. The current article says that the support was in Lion.

References

Mydude123 (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Added information to "Version 10.8: Mountain Lion"

In the "Version 10.8: Mountain Lion" there should be a little bit about how it has more chinese support, the information to be put can be found at the main article here.

 iWiki Script  Talk  11:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

White Lion

A few Internet sites say that the next version after Lion will be called White Lion. Any verified info on this?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's been verified by Apple that it won't be. :-) Guy Harris (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Mac About us.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mac About us.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 25 February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Mac About us.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

File:10.7-.8 without mac.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:10.7-.8 without mac.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 25 February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:10.7-.8 without mac.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Disc mac os x.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Disc mac os x.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 25 February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Disc mac os x.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Osxboxes.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Osxboxes.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 25 February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Osxboxes.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

OS X version description

The image description for the boxes/logos of each OS X version is inaccurate, says that Lion is version 6 (when it is 7), and that Snow Leopard is also version 6 (which it is). Please fix.

Drewno (talk to me) 15:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

(Presumably this was asked because the page is semi-protected and therefore you didn't have permission to edit it.) Done. (Note that those aren't version numbers, they're picture numbers; the first picture is for both Cheetah and Puma (10.0 and 10.1).) Guy Harris (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

X11 has been discontinued in OS X Mountain Lion

In the software section, there should be a note, stating that you have to manually install XQuartz, because X11 is not bundled with OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teakuno (talk • contribs) 17:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Guy Harris (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

OS X Logo Display

There have been a couple back and forths with the banner logo for the article. Should it be a literal, stylized "X" (which had been used in versions of OS X until recently) or the latest released version's logo (which is a cat)? From my perspective, it seems to be pushing it to insist on the use of an older "X" logo simply because Apple has decided to no longer have one but we editors wanna have an X on the top of the article. My understanding is that we attempt to reflect reality instead of getting creative. Or should we simply have no logo? Lexlex (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It should not be the latest released version's logo, because that's not a logo for "OS X" as a whole, it's just a logo for the release in question. It should especially not be the logo for a release different from the one shown in the screenshot. If there's no Apple logo that's used for OS X as a whole - i.e., one that is not a picture of a particular big cat, corresponding to a particular release - we should simply forego having a logo at all, as that means there is no logo for OS X. Guy Harris (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that a picture of a cat is not indicative of the product as a whole, but when a company does this - just drops the logo with no replacement, what are we supposed to do? I kind of think losing the logo would be the best thing also or perhaps just using the latest screen shot, or the finder icon? Any ideas? Using an old logo doesn't seem right to me. And yes, we are dissecting flies here - but this is fun, right? ;) Lexlex (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

If the company drops the logo with no replacement, drop the logo, as I've done. Guy Harris (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, good call. Lexlex (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Marklar history details on Quora

I doubt any of this is solid enough to use, but perhaps it can be cross referenced with something else: How does Apple keep secrets so well? --Steven Fisher (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 June 2012

Under 5.10, please update as follows: OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion February 16, 2012[76] July 2012[76] DP3 (April 18, 2012) To: OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion February 16, 2012[76] July 2012[76] DP4 (June 11, 2012)

MJWaters1985 (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mdann52 (talk) 10:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Quick question

Why is the screen shot of "lion" and not "mountain lion". Obtund 13:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Because no one has gotten around to it, probably. Do you have one? If so, please upload and replace or put link here if you'd rather. Otherwise it should happen soon enough.Lexlex (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the screenshot to the one from the infobox on the ML page. Hope that sorts it out. --drewmunn (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah someone made one when ML was realesed but then this 13 year old kid kept changing it back...Thanks.Obtund 19:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Inaccuracy

The article starts "Mac OS X is a series of Unix-based operating systems and graphical user interfaces *developed*, marketed, and sold by Apple Inc." (emphasis mine). Apple actually only developed a very small portion of the operating system (an uninformed rough guess, I'd say less than 0.001% of the source code). The core kernel (which Apple dubs Darwin is a mash of various older operating systems, including Mach3, XNU and BSD - all open source operating systems). As with most operating systems (with perhaps the notable exception of Windows), the vast majority of the code volume is in components external to the OS kernel - such as tools, admin and user utilities and applications, drivers, windowing systems, network stacks etc etc). Like most contemporary *nix operating system distributions, Mac OS X comes with a fairly large set of tools - most of which are redistributions of open source software with little or no modification. The biggest exception for Mac OS X is the windowing system, which Apple chose to develop themselves (borrowing from OpenStep after the acquisition of NeXT Computer.). So, we can say that in all likelihood, the amount of code in Mac OS X as distributed by Apple that was developed by the global Linux, *nix and FreeBSD communities could be as must as 99.999%. Again, this is just a guess, but even if I'm out by two or even three orders of magnitude, there is no way one can support claiming that Apple "developed" Mac OS X in its entirety when it is basically a mash of open source code with a thin veneer of Apple code on top. I suppose the sense of the word "developed" could be taken to mean "slightly enhanced", but given the common usage of "developed" in the software world, it is, at best, misleading as currently stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidljung (talk • contribs) 20:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"The windowing system" - and the non-GUI libraries that accompany it, such as Core Foundation and Foundation, and other libraries such as various audio libraries, Core Data, etc. - are more than .001%, .01%, or even 10% of the operating system. The core OS, Darwin (which is more than the kernel; XNU is just /mach_kernel, there are both kernel extensions, many Apple-developed, and userland libraries in Darwin as well - check out http://opensource.apple.com/), is far from completely developed by Apple, but XNU is much modified from Mach 3 and the various BSDs that have contributed code to it (and some parts of it are Apple-developed or NeXT-developed, such as HFS+ and IOKit), and userland includes the Open Directory code (which may rest atop open-source NIS and LDAP code, but isn't itself based on any other open source code), and the Grand Central Dispatch code, which was developed by Apple.

So, no, the article isn't inaccurate. Guy Harris (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Once upon a time, I had to look over a quite a bit of Mac OS X sources as part of getting it to compile with versions of GCC. While I don't have exact numbers (and it would be an NDA violation anyway), there is a *huge* amount of Apple-originated code in the system - I wouldn't be surprised if it's well over half of all the source lines. Sure, cat hasn't been changed much, but that's just a few hundred lines, while subsystems like Quartz and the CoreFoos are often in the 50-100Kloc range... each. Another way to look at it is that Apple has had hundreds of system software engineers working on OS X for 15 years straight; even assuming a low-ish productivity of a half-page per day, and 200 engineers coding, that still comes up to 15Mloc total - and I can assure everyone that the total system is not 15M / 0.001% = 1.5 trillion lines of code, lol. Stan (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Even if Apple hasn't written every line, they surely have developed OSX as a complete package. Apple chose to include or not to include certain open source components, contribute to and even if they don't rewrite any of them this is still a part of the development of OSX. Just like Google certainly have developed the Nexus 7 tablet, even if they didn't design nor manufacture the Tegra 3 chipset or any other electronic components in it. -- Henriok (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

New column in Versions table

I was thinking a new column in the Versions table for the version of the kernel would be nice to have along with all the other stuff in that table. This is the information that is obtained from the command "uname -a" (less the hostname so as not to show any personal info or just replace it with XXXXXX). Another method if you don't have that version of OS X running could also be obtained with the command "strings /mach_kernel | grep Darwin" where the location of the kernel file could be anywhere (this method does not result in the system name being shown) - most likely another bootable volume root folder.

For Lion on a MacBookPro4,1 system this info is:

$ uname -a

Darwin XXXXXX 11.4.0 Darwin Kernel Version 11.4.0: Mon Apr 9 19:32:15 PDT 2012; root:xnu-1699.26.8~1/RELEASE_X86_64 x86_64

For Snow Leopard on a MacPro1,1 system this info is:

$ uname -a

Darwin XXXXXX 10.8.0 Darwin Kernel Version 10.8.0: Tue Jun 7 16:33:36 PDT 2011; root:xnu-1504.15.3~1/RELEASE_I386 i386

So for example here is what the table might look like:

Mac OS X Version Information

Version	Codename	Date Announced	Release Date	Most Recent Version	Kernel Version
Rhapsody Developer Release	Grail1Z4 / Titan1U		August 31, 1997	DR2 (May 14, 1998)	Unknown
Mac OS X Server 1.0	Hera		March 16, 1999	1.2v3 (October 27, 2000)	Unknown
Mac OS X Developer Preview			March 16, 1999	DP4 (April 5, 2000)	Unknown
Public Beta	Kodiak		September 13, 2000		Unknown
Mac OS X 10.0	Cheetah		March 24, 2001	10.0.4 (June 22, 2001)	Unknown
Mac OS X 10.1	Puma	July 18, 2001	September 25, 2001	10.1.5 (June 6, 2002)	Unknown
Mac OS X 10.2	Jaguar	May 6, 2002	August 24, 2002	10.2.8 (October 3, 2003)	Unknown
Mac OS X 10.3	Panther	June 23, 2003	October 24, 2003	10.3.9 (April 15, 2005)	Unknown
Mac OS X 10.4	Tiger	May 4, 2004	April 29, 2005	10.4.11 (November 14, 2007)	Unknown
Mac OS X 10.5	Leopard	June 26, 2006	October 26, 2007	10.5.8 (August 5, 2009)	Darwin Kernel Version 9.8.0 - Tue Aug 5, 2008, ?:?:?
Mac OS X 10.6	Snow Leopard	June 9, 2008	August 28, 2009	10.6.8 v1.1 (July 25, 2011)	Darwin Kernel Version 10.8.0 - Tue Jun 7, 2011, 16:33:36
Mac OS X 10.7	Lion	October 20, 2010	July 20, 2011	10.7.4 (May 9, 2012)	Darwin Kernel Version 11.4.0 - Mon Apr 9, 2012, 19:32:15
OS X 10.8	Mountain Lion	February 16, 2012	July 25, 2012	10.8 (July 25, 2012)	Unknown

References

Think it would be a nice extra bit of info to show along with all the other stuff in that table and since the table has only 5 columns now, think that adding one more would not be an issue.

For the moment any system that does not have data available would be marked as "Unknown" (or should it be left blank???) and then be filled in when that information becomes known.

As far as sourcing where this information comes from, it would be in the same category as the current last column (Most Recent Version) - none of this info has any footnote sources, so don't see where this new column should be treated any different. Anyone who has that particular system could easily verify it's accuracy.

I've always wished that this extra bit of information was available somewhere, but so far have never seen it anyplace other than on OS X systems themselves and think that it would be a nice addition to the information already shown in this table.

Is there any point in putting the same kernel version info in the description details of each OS X version that follows the table?

DeepYogurt (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there any point in having something such as "Darwin Kernel Version 10.8.0: Tue Jun 7 16:33:36 PDT 2011; root:xnu-1504.15.3~1/RELEASE_I386" in the table? I'm unconvinced - who cares at what point the build started or finished or whatever on Apple's build servers? uname -a is, at least on Snow Leopard, the same as uname -mnsrv. -m is bogus, as it's different on machines that happen to run 32-bit kernels and machines that happen to run 64-bit kernels. -n is, as you noted, completely bogus here. -s is just going to be "Darwin", and -v is that long build string, so that leaves just -r. That might be interesting, although it can be computed from the OS X version. Guy Harris (talk) 08:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - Lion as Unix 03

If I'm reading it correctly it looks like Lion did actually receive a Unix 03 certification. However Apple got it after Lion was launched, and they also opted for Lion's Unix 03 status to be confidential on the Open Brand site. I came to this conclusion after I found Lion's conformance statements in the OS X certification pages, it could be seen at the bottom in the document history.

• Internationalised System Calls and Libraries Extended V3: [15]
• Commands and Utilities V4:[16]
• C Language V2: [17] (validated on October 2011, three months after Lion was launched)
• Internationalised Terminal Interfaces: [18]

The actual certificate can't be seen on the Open Brand site since it can be confidential -- "The details of the Certified Product will then be put on the Certification Register, which is a public document, unless you have requested that it remains confidential." [19] I guess Apple chose to keep Lion's Unix 03 status hidden since they were very late, unlike in Leopard and Snow Leopard (and later Mountain Lion) where they received their Unix 03 certifications on time.

In any case Apple announced it themselves that Lion is Unix 03 on their security whitepaper, and it looks legit enough as they are using Open Group branding and copyrights: [20]. It's not just OS X 10.5, 10.6, and 10.8 which were Unix 03 certified but 10.7 as well. --112.203.35.255 (talk) 03:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The specific parts that would be edited would be on the infobox (OS family; add a reference for Lion) and in the first paragraph of the article adding Lion to the OS X versions that are Unix 03. Additionally an edit editing the reference for "Apple page on Unix" [21] should be done too as the link just redirects to OS X Server, I suggest it linking to the security whitepaper (OS X for Unix users) in my post above. --112.203.35.255 (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Partly done: I added a reference for the whitepaper in your first to the part of the infobox with the family, and added Lion to the first part of the paragraph. Is that OK? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 00:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That works out great, thank you for the edit. --112.203.35.255 (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Update Versions for 10.7.5

Could someone update 10.7.4 to 10.7.5 that just came out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.57.234 (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Versions board update ... end of support

In the "Versions" paragraph, It may be useful to add an "End of Support" column in the version sum-up board. And precise "2012" as the end of support date for Leopard ...

Thanks

WikiAlanSwiki (talk) 14:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

 On hold/ Not done. No sourcing on the second statement, I'll leave it up to those who regularly edit this page to determine on the column. gwickwire | Leave a message 19:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Column

Leaving this open per ER above, don't exactly know if I'm for or against it at this moment. gwickwire | Leave a message 19:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Directory structure

What kind of Directory structure does OS X use ? 80.200.227.141 (talk) 09:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

As with other Unix systems, OS X uses the Unix directory structure. drewmunn (talk) 09:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

...with some differences. For example, removable devices are, by default, mounted on directories under /Volumes rather than on /media, /opt isn't the standard place for add-on software, and OS X has no /proc (neither do some other Unixes); also, some system configuration files are stored in directories under /System/Library, as are the loadable kernel modules that are part of the system. By and large, however, the same directory layout is used. Guy Harris (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Lynx

Because of recent edits, I've decided to open this discussion here. Please see this discussion that occurred on the iPad talk page a while back. It regards pre-release rumors surrounding the iPad mini, and whether we should document them. No solid conclusion was come to, and it developed into a bit of an argument later on (on a user's talk page), but still nothing solid was drawn up. My opinion on the matter of including rumors, however, is that they have no place on Wikipedia. I cited a mix different guidelines to back up this belief:

[I believe rumors fall] under a mix of No Original Research ("Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."), and Verifiability (“Sources that are not usually reliable... [include those that] rely heavily on rumor."). Lastly, the Wikipedia is not a crystal ball guidelines state that "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors."

I'd like to hear other people's opinions on this, as it'd clear up a lot of problems in the future, as well as the issue in hand. Thanks in advance. drewmunn (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree - I removed the section. Apple haven't officially announced anything, and this speculative article from PC Magazine pointed to this article as a source; the latter article says "This report comes from a reliable source who claims to have talked to someone from inside the walls of Apple.", which sounds like "a friend of a friend told me", and what they told them was "This source claimed that he saw some internal papers that seem to be finalizing the name of the operating system, although the same source couldn’t say when Apple would be finalizing its name and announcing it to the public.", which doesn't seem very authoritative. This CNET article also refers back to the AppleScoop article, as does this mashable.com article (which also seems to assume that the city of Cupertino would explode if there were two digits after "10.", or something such as that - "With only one version of Mac OS X left to go", indeed...). So the first few articles that popped up from a Google search for "os x lynx" all seem to go back to the AppleScoop article.

So this sounds as if it all comes from a "trust me" claim from one site. Not exactly encyclopedic, as far as I'm concerned.... Guy Harris (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly; the current state of the rumors all share one source, which in itself purports to have a source. However, that source is shrouded in more mystery than is good for a rumor. On top of that, the only material evidence I could find anywhere was a screenshot of webpage analytics, showing OS X version 10.9 had visited the site. This is not evidence that a release will happen any time soon, just that Apple still exist, and the employees are awake. On the topic of rumors in general, what's your opinion? This will become more relevant for the Lynx case as time goes on and more 'friends of friends' appear, but overall, what do you think? drewmunn (talk) 18:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Over all, my inclination would be to leave rumors out, except perhaps if there are a large number of rumors from independent sources all pointing in the same direction, as long as they're clearly presented as rumors, and even there I'm not inclined to think the rumors are that newsworthy (the only point of including rumors being to give the news that there are a lot of rumors; the content of the rumors isn't encyclopedic, but maybe a high level of rumors at some point is). Guy Harris (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 March 2013

Please update the Most Recent Version within the Versions table of OS X 10.8 from 10.8.2 to 10.8.3 and the corresponding September release date to March 14, 2013.

Supporting information can be found here: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5612 Belanger (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Guy Harris (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

10.9 Cabernet

Go to http://www.technobuffalo.com/2013/04/29/mac-os-x-10-9-cabernet-apple/ and it says that 10.9 officially has a name. Any thoughts about creating an article?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That's an internal codename that may not be used for the final product. See, for instance, Windows Longhorn. We don't actually have anything much even to confirm that it is used in Apple, other than media outlets and their 'reliable sources'. In any way, it's unlikely to be its final name (it's not a cat, after all), and we have nothing to use it in context with. drewmunn talk 14:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That is what Windows Vista was called back in 2004. Now everyone knows it as Windows Vista. Georgia guy (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That's why I cited it. In very rare circumstances do internal codenames become popular enough to pass WP:COMMONNAME. drewmunn talk 14:36, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 May 2013

In your history of OS X it's missing mkLinux's contribution that helped Mac OS X advance. Linux has helped a lot with OS X !

History Main article: History of OS X

MkLinux was the first attempt by Apple to support a free and open source software project. The work done with the Mach 3.0 kernel in MkLinux was extremely helpful in bringing up NeXTSTEP on the Mac platform, which would later become OS X.

reliable sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MkLinux

Mallenwest (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

mkLinux helped a lot with OS X. The part that helped was the "mk" part, not the "Linux" part. Guy Harris (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please also cite a reliable source; another Wikipedia article won't suffice. Rivertorch (talk) 05:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps he meant that the mkLinux page (which he should have mentioned with a wikilink, not a raw URL) has presumably reliable sources, such as [22], as its citations. Guy Harris (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps. I certainly have no objection to your incorporating the proposed addition, along with any sources you think support it. My sense was that it was likely to be disputed, so the sources had better be explicitly identified so that there'd be something tangible to argue over ;) Rivertorch (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Maverick

The following URL reveals it's official that OS X 10.9's name is Maverick:

http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/10/4413466/apple-os-x-10-9-announcement-pricing-availability

Georgia guy (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yup. It's mentioned here, and it has a page of its own. Guy Harris (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 September 2013

On September 12, 2013, the newest update for OS X Mountain Lion has been released: OS X 10.8.5. Source: http://support.apple.com/kb/DL1676. Claytonbn (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

 No action. The page already reflects this in the infobox, the relevant location for such data.  drewmunn  talk  15:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 October 2013

This page shows the most recent version of OS X Mavericks is DP 5. Apple has released the GM seed of Mavericks on Thursday, Oct 3rd, 2013. Requesting to update the information to show the change.

In the Versions table, replace the "Most Recent Version" text for the OS X 10.9 row to say "10.9 Golden Master (October 3rd, 2013)."

The source is Apple's Developer program, but there are other posts outside the developer program, as well:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57606004-37/apple-releases-os-x-mavericks-golden-master-to-developers/ http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/10/03/apple-releases-os-x-109-mavericks-golden-master-to-developers http://www.macrumors.com/2013/10/03/os-x-mavericks-released-for-all-mac-developers-as-golden-master-seed/

Jmillertym (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Guy Harris (talk) 00:13, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The images of each OS disc under the Description section... should we really have them all in one row?

It looks kinda ridiculous. On my 13" laptop, the second infobox ends in Description, so the beginning of that section only has about 300 pixels of width. If I knew how to do it, I would change it into three rows, maybe even four. Greenplastictree (talk) 05:24, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

System Information merge proposal

The AfD for System Information closed without consensus but merge into this article was suggested as a possible resolution. ~KvnG 13:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Support Hi. If you must know, I am the original nominator. But I am seeing KvnG and three others have issued a "merge" verdict while only two have advised "keep". So, I think a merger is in order. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, my vote was Keep. I don't think merge discussions should be done at AfD. ~KvnG 15:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Support. Not independently notable. Brycehughes (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - Seeing the support from others, I looked at doing this merge. There are 28 utilities in {{OS X topics}}. To do the merge would make this the only utility covered in depth in the main article and would cause WP:UNDUE. ~KvnG 15:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - Same as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_Panel_(Windows) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.6.4.148 (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Support. Although the Control Panel (Windows) article is similar, it has much more content than the System Information article. J.gastaldello (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - as per KvnG's 8 December 2013 argument, and against J.gastaldello's 17 January 2014 comment — we should not just delete articles for lack of full content but instead they should be improved to be made better (there's loads of info missing from the page that needs to be added). Jimthing (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - per KvnG's 8 December 2013 argument.SBaker43 (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Citations

This article includes numerous uncited statements. Tezero (talk) 02:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Please add {{citation needed}} to those statements. Guy Harris (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. (Really should've done that first; you're right.) There are a lot of them, though, even considering that I left a few common-sense/easily-checkable statements alone. There are also a number of short paragraphs. I don't think this article fits GA status in its current state, although it wouldn't take too much work. Tezero (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2014

88.227.167.128 (talk) 09:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You have to actually ask people to do something specific here.... Guy Harris (talk) 09:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 11:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Build versions

Map of OS X version to Kernel Version 10.0 4K78 10.2 6C115 10.3 7B85 10.4 8A428 10.4.7 8K1079 10.4.9 8P2137 10.6.4 10F569 10.7.3 11D50d 10.7.4 11E53 10.8.5 12F45 10.9.2 13C64 10.9.2 13C1021 10.9.3 13D61 tech preview 10.9.3 13D65 @mcalef — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.29.105.98 (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Those aren't kernel versions (kernel versions are Darwin versions, such as you get from "uname -r"), those are build versions, which correspond to the entire OS. Mappings from versions to build numbers can be found in the pages for the individual OS versions, such as Mac OS X v10.0, Mac OS X v10.1, ..., OS X Mavericks. Guy Harris (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

OS X 10.10 Article

Hi all! As some of you may be aware, and article exists for OS X 10.10, despite it not yet having been announced. As this is likely to happen within 24 hours, I'm not taking deletion action. However, I'd welcome your comments at this talk section as to the validity of the article's existence, and how we should deal with this kind of thing in the future. Thanks!  drewmunn  talk  20:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi all,

I deleted both the page and the current section on the rumored OS X 10.10. Yes, we've seen all the leaked banners "confirming" the next OS, but beyond that we don't have any official information. Unfortunately the reports of a slimmer profile and similarities to the OS 7 user interface are only speculation at this point. We have to remember that such material needs to reliably sourced. However, after the WWDC keynote tomorrow you are welcome to add the confirmed information. Best, Mike V • Talk 01:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hackintosh Discussion

Hi Everyone.

I think that there should be a mention of "hackintosh" builds of OS (builds of OSX which focus on hardware that is not supported by Apple, or that have non-standard features).

I would love to hear other opinions BDBJack (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

A mention such as, for example, saying something like "Support for the PowerPC platform was dropped after Mac OS X 10.5. Such cross-platform capability already existed in Mac OS X's lineage; OpenStep was ported to many architectures, including x86, and Darwin included support for both PowerPC and x86. Apple stated that Mac OS X would not run on Intel-based personal computers aside from its own, but a hacked version of the OS compatible with conventional x86 hardware was developed by the OSx86 community." in the "Apple–Intel transition" section? :-) Guy Harris (talk) 21:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Either more than a sentence which I missed when I was reviewing the article, or a sub section of under versions which can give a brief explanation and link to the appropriate article with more information. BDBJack (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

OS X or Mac OS X (or MacOS or System..)

Hi, "OS X" is now used for current versions and I support that in this page. "Mac OS X" also redirects here. I've changed a lot of link to here from "Mac OS X" to "OS X", and now have second thoughts about it due to WP:COMMONNAME. Does that trump WP:TRADEMARK? I started thinking when seeing PostgreSQL (didn't change there). I might be implying that software only runs on OS X (10.8 or maybe 10.7) and newer, when the software probably runs on 10.0 and up. When I know, I have changed but even then it might be confusing other editors thinking they should/could always do the same. I've changed for instance keyboard layout articles that said "Mac OS X" but really some things like that (not most software?) also applies to "Mac OS" or System.. Would you just change everything to "OS X" (unless for software that only worked on pre-Mac OS X?)? comp.arch (talk) 15:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

There are essentially 2 issues here, so I'll separate them out:

• COMMONNAME would, from some Internet hit searching, lean towards OS X anyway. Even prior to the official name change, people already referred to it sans the "Mac". OS X is, then, how we should refer to the family of operating systems.
• Articles should really call the family of operating systems as "OS X". Similarly, all versions of OS X greater than Lion should be referred to as "OS X", as that is what they are. However, any versions prior to Mountain Lion are still Mac OS X 10.n, so they should be referred to as "Mac OS X". They are, however, part of the OS X family, not the Mac OS X family.

Does that do anything to clear things up?  drewmunn  talk  19:03, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

As for Mac OS/System, about all the old OS for Macs and the new one have in common is that

1. Apple has offered them both as the OS that ships with Macs;
2. Later versions of the old OS, and current versions of OS X, support the Carbon API;

so those should be spoken of separately - what software, UI features, etc. apply to both should mention both. Guy Harris (talk) 19:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Optional style: Hi. The difference between Mac OS X and OS X is so trivial that it is a matter of optional style. According to MOS:STABILITY, one of these must be used consistently in the article but there is no need for cross-article consistency. However, once an article chose one of these as the consistently used one, it must not be changed. ArbCom has previously ruled that disputes over optional styles or and changes of optional styles in one article are not tolerated.

In short, do not convert "Mac OS X" to "OS X" or vice versa; this is not allowed.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the "info" on MOS:STABILITY. I put it in quotes, as it now redirects to a non-existent section and I wander if the concensus on this has changed? I just thought of this again now when seeing Help:Installing_Japanese_character_sets#Unicode_Japanese_fonts. I would have maybe changed, just the section name. comp.arch (talk) 19:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

the page should definitely be changed back to "Mac OS X" - "OS X" is just a shortening of the original anyways. Windows Vista hasn't moved to "Vista".Secondplanet (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yosemite Intro Date

The article states that the Yosemite intro date is "Autumn 2104" Is that Autumn in the Northern or Southern Hemisphere?LorenzoB (talk) 03:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@LorenzoB: Neither, literally speaking, because that's disallowed by WP:SEASON for just that reason. I rewrote it to "Q4 2014" as per standardized speech. Again. Because this is the perennial issue with each release by the likes of Apple and Nintendo. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 03:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

10.1 <>10.10?

v10.10 seems a weird numbering.--85.103.248.22 (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The answer to the question in the section title is "yes, they are, in fact, not the same". A version number is NOT a decimal representation of a rational number, it's an N-tuple. Guy Harris (talk) 06:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Unix certification-no longer certified?

I was looking at the UNIX 03 specification lists and noticed that OS X is no longer listed as a certified Unix. According to the internet archive it was in July, with Mavericks and Mountain Lion certified, but that's now vanished. I suppose it's possible that this is a run-up-to-Yosemite thing, but if anyone knows if OS X is no longer trying to be certified it would be great if they could explain what's happening. (I have no compsci background, just was curious about something and noticed this.) Blythwood (talk) 04:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It's no longer on the summary page, but the individual pages (used as references in the article) are still there. My guess is that it's a run-up-to-Yosemite thing. Guy Harris (talk) 06:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's back. 85.210.46.232 (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Some things for helping merging

This is what I will write in Wikipedia syntax... Improve it, okay?

==Updating== OS X can be updated using the Apple App store. Until OS X Lion, the updating method was to use the Apple Software Update ===Apple Software Update=== '''Software Update''' is a [[software tool]] by [[Apple Inc.]] that installs the latest version of Apple software on computers running [[OS X]]. It was originally introduced to Mac users in [[Mac OS 9]]. A Windows version has been available since the introduction of [[iTunes|iTunes 7]], under the name '''Apple Software Update'''. Software Update automatically informs users of new updates. The program is part of the [[CoreServices]] in OS X. Software Update can be set to check for updates daily, weekly, monthly, or not at all; in addition, it can download and store the associated [[.pkg]] file (the same type used by [[Installer (OS X)|Installer]]) to be installed at a later date and maintains a history of installed updates. Software Updates consist of incremental updates of the Mac OS and its applications, Security Updates, [[device driver]]s and [[firmware]] updates. All software updates require the user to enter their administrative password, as with all consequential system changes. Some updates require a system restart. Starting with [[OS X 10.5]], updates that require a reboot log out the user prior to installation and automatically restart the computer when complete; in earlier versions, the updates are installed, but critical files are not replaced until the next system startup. As of [[OS X Mountain Lion]], Software Update has been merged into the [[Mac App Store]]. ===App Store=== {{main article|Apple App Store}} Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 07:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC) I will put this after the versions of OS X. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC) Great stuff. I am considering though merging this into a discussion of the Mac App Store: it's not clear to me that readers need to learn about Software Update as a separate thing to the MAS. I think it might be better to discuss the MAS, explain that it also includes a page for managing core OS updates, and explain that once these used to be separate applications. Thoughts? Basically, I'd like to keep things up to date and I feel the core audience for this article is someone coming to OS X for the first time. (If you want to know what things were like back in 2011 or so you can always read the article on the relevant version or Siracusa's articles or something. Blythwood (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC) __MACOSX -directory inside ZIP-files? Sometimes ZIP-files I download from Internet has some weird directory called “__MACOSX”. It seems I can find information about it from Google. But if I write that string __MACOSX to search engine of Wikipedia, I end up reading this article. Maybe our wiki-engine has some restriction that prevents articles whose names start with “__”. juhtolv (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC) That's purely technical (honestly it's not worth editorial attention). OS X stores extra metadata in the file system, so they have to somehow preserve them when zipped. Duhh. 140.207.51.246 (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Imprecise statements: graphical OS and hardware exclusivity. Yes, OS X has a graphical user interface and it's important to the whole concept. Yes, Apple designs OS X with Mac hardware in mind. For both facts the lead paragraph has related statements written in a buzzy/peacock style, and both mislead users into erroneously thinking OS X cannot be booted to a command line interface and be exclusively used like that, or that OS X is hard or impossible to install on non-Apple devices. There's no reason, other than buzz-wording, to mention the GUI and exclude the CLI when both exist for OS X, and because OS X is not fundamentally different to other operating systems in its use of a graphical interface. In fact the text shell exists at a more basic level than the GUI, as with any other Unix-like system: you can uninstall Quartz and Aqua and have OS X, but you can hardly not include a command line interpreter and still call yourself a Unix system. To say OS X is designed to run exclusively on Mac computers is almost a blatant lie, allowable just because it doesn't explicitly claim that OS X only runs on Mac computers. The fact is that as long as OS X is written in a programming language with multi-platform compilers, or as long as the official binaries are for x86 or PPC or any other platform architecture not exclusive to Apple, Apple is consciously designing OS X to work on non-Apple hardware. People install OS X in non-Apple computers all the time, just as easily as they would do if they had to reinstall it on Macs. Wikipedia is not a place to express fanaticism. If you want to present facts please write them objectively, in the proper context and style, and back them preferably with secondary and tertiary sources. On the contrary better have them removed. --isacdaavid 05:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Simply stating that OS X is designed to run on Apple equipment is not the same as stating it cannot run on other equipment. It's hardly fanatical. A simple point of fact is that the people writing the software (e.g. designing it) work for Apple; everything they do is for the company. The system is designed to work with the GUI and CLI together. To argue that because OS X can be installed on other equipment without a GUI indicates it is somehow not exclusively designed for Apple equipment seems to completely miss that point. I can install a BMW logo plate on a Toyota, however it doesn't mean the BMW logo was designed to fit on non-BMW made cars. Further, as far as I understand, installing OS X on non-Apple equipment, with or without the GUI, violates the terms of use and is not allowed in the license—indicating again that not only is it designed for Apple equipment, purchasers of the software are legally compelled to only install it on Apple equipment. (See Psystar Corporation for a good example.) Lexlex (talk) 09:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC) I think the phrase doesn't simply states that OS X is designed for Apple stuff, it goes on saying it is exclusively designed for it, and this is where confusion lies. Whether Apple employees are working for Apple doesn't imply all they do, included OS X, is tied to Apple. I think you misunderstood the 2 separate arguments: one is concerned with the claim that OS X is a graphical interface operating system whatever that means, which is somewhat correct but also irrelevant for an intro and possibly misleading because of the command line possibility, etc. The other one is about OS-hardware relationship, claimed to be an injective one as currently read. In summary I also think these portions of the article could be improved to reflect more clarity. Your analogy with cars isn't helpful to say the least. A better one would be to think of OS X as a set of tires with specific measures, designed to fit on any car from any manufacturer as long as rims match (x86_64/AMD64 processors), regardless of partnership and deals between the tires maker and certain car manufacturer (vigorous Apple marketing in terms of software-hardware integration and exclusivity). Also see Hackintosh --Sisgeo (talk) 05:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC) OS X is a set of tires from an automobile maker who doesn't really give much of a damn whether the tires will work on anybody else's car. In fact, the tires have spikes in them that, unless you make an effort to remove them, will give you a flat tire if you try to use them on a car that doesn't have the special wheels that the automobile maker produces. Yes, people have figured out how to remove the spikes, but the spikes are there. I worked in the Core OS group at Apple, and, no, no particular effort was made to ensure that it run on anybody else's hardware (and the tire maker and car maker are the same company, so there's no "partnership and deal" here). Guy Harris (talk) 06:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC) "A better one would be to think of OS X as a set of tires with specific measures, designed to fit on any car from any manufacturer as long as rims match" Sorry, but that's a terrible analogy. Apple doesn't go out of their way to make sure the OS "fits" any hardware but theirs, not since the CHRP days. MFNickster (talk) 05:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Whether Apple tries to make it work with non-Apple hardware or not and whether Apple systematically sabotages users to impede them from installing OS X on non-Apple hardware is irrelevant, for installing OS X in non-Apple hardware is a fact as you all have confirmed. This is all that it takes to show that this article is misleading. Wikipedia doesn't need Apple paid representatives and fanboys to divert encyclopedic truth to a business campaign. --Sisgeo (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC) I do not and have never worked for Apple, I have never and will never own an Apple product, and am concerned only about the factual accuracy of this encyclopedia. Your edit I reverted is plainly not factually accurate, as AMD64 is not an officially supported use, nor was it intended to natively run on AMD64 hardware, given that Apple has never sold a product with an AMD64 processor. AMD GPU's, yes. CPU's, no. The fact that Apple's license states that you're not allowed to install OSX on anything other than official Apple hardware indicates it is not intended, or supported, to be used on anything else, including AMD CPU's. The fact that it DOES or can be made to work does not mean it's officially supported, and speaking of "misleading", your edit changing "It is designed to run on Mac computers, having been pre-installed on all Macs since 2002," to "It runs on AMD64 computers, having been pre-installed on all Macs since 2002" borders on intentional vandalism or the deliberate introduction of unsourced, non-factual content. Just because I *CAN* install Windows on Apple hardware (now that they use Intel processors) does not mean it's acceptable to claim "Apple computers run Microsoft Windows." besiegedtalk 04:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Pronunciation Suggestion OS X can be pronounced as "OS 10" or also as "OS X". Although the first pronunciation appears in the article, I propose that the second pronunciation should be added as well. TJRana (talk) 12:57, 14 March 2015 (UTC) It's already been discussed extensively - read the Talk page archives. The only verifiable sources refer to "X" as the Roman numeral 10. "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." per WP:Verifiability MFNickster (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC) Anything can be pronounced wrong. It can also be said backward. Anybody can make up anything. We try to avoid especially the original research which is obviously patently wrong. And yet, the mispronunciation is already described as such in the article. — Smuckola(talk) 17:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC) OS X name change According to all recent promotional material from Apple, multiple Macworld stories (which is the #1 Apple Magazine and has a direct pipeline to Apple), and verification from apple, Mac OS X is from here on forward to be named simply "OS X". I request that the article be renamed OS X, and whenever Max OS X is searched, it redirect to OS X. Flynn58 (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC) OS X already goes to Mac OS X; I'm not sure what you mean by "whenever Mac OS X is searched". This should NOT be done simply by renaming the article; the article should, at minimum, indicate that it used to be called "Mac OS X" (see, for example, the Apple Inc. page, which says Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL) formerly Apple Computer, Inc. is an American multinational corporation that designs and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and personal computers.) In addition, this should NOT involve an automatic search-and-replace of all occurrences of "Mac OS X" to "OS X" - the names for the pre-Mountain Lion versions should remain "Mac OS X", as that's what they were called, titles of articles etc. in references should NOT be changed as the magazines etc. used the correct name at the time, and NO links should be changed unless the page in question is moved (i.e., the change should break NO links in this page!). Guy Harris (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC) Flynn58 is correct. The name of the operating system has changed, so the name of the article should change to "OS X" and a user search for "Mac OS X" should redirect to the new page ("OS X"). See iOS, which used to be named "iPhone OS". Similarly, a search for "iPhone OS" will redirect to "iOS". Compsciasaur (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure what "a user search for "Mac OS X" should redirect to the new page ("OS X")" means. If you're citing "a search for "iPhone OS" will redirect to "iOS"" as an example, that's called a redirect, and there's already a redirect from "OS X" to "Mac OS X", as indicated. A page rename would involve a move over a redirect, with "OS X" becoming the article and "Mac OS X" becoming a redirect to "OS X", which is certainly doable. As for changing anything else in the page, a large number of the "Mac OS X"s in this page should be left as is, so, as I said, nobody should do a global search-and-replace in the page; I had to undo one of those that broke a bunch of links and referred to older versions as "OS X {blah blah blah}" rather than as "Mac OS X {blah blah blah}", the fact that their name was "Mac OS X {blah blah blah}" nonwithstanding. I really don't want to have to do that again.... Guy Harris (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC) Ok, forget about the redirect and the search-and-replace. The main point is that the article "Mac OS X" should be renamed/moved/whatever you want to call it. Ron Artest's page is now named Metta World Peace, iPhone OS's page is now named iOS, so there is a precedent where if something changes its name, the corresponding Wikipedia article is updated.Compsciasaur (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC) That's what it's called, so let's move it. Zach Vega (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC) So why haven't we done it yet? Flynn58 (talk) 06:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC) For some reason it won't let us, so an admin has to do it. Zach Vega (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC) The reason is that there's already an OS X page that redirects to Mac OS X, so you can't just rename this page - there's a page in the way. You need to request that an admin do a "move over a redirect", or whatever it's called, as per Wikipedia:Move requests#Requesting technical moves. The end result of that would be a page named "OS X" with a page named "Mac OS X" that redirects to "OS X"; I don't know whether the admin would clean up any pages that redirect to Mac OS X to redirect to OS X instead, to avoid double-redirects, or whether the person requesting the move should do so afterwards. Whether such a move would count as "controversial" as per that section I leave up to whoever requests the move. There's already been a discussion on this page, so, at least as I read Wikipedia:Move requests#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves, all the necessary discussion seems to have been done. Given that Apple appear to have more vigorously dropped the "Mac" in Mountain Lion than in Lion, I wouldn't object to the move at this point, as long as the updates to the page after the move are done VERY carefully, so as not to break links or change titles of references (nobody went back in time and changed Ars Technica articles talking about "Mac OS X Snow Leopard" to now say "OS X Snow Leopard", for example); they perhaps shouldn't even refer to pre-Mountain Lion releases as "OS X" without decoration, either. Guy Harris (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC) Done, thanks to Zach Vega. Guy Harris (talk) 07:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC) I realise this is now done, however I think that it isn't as simple as suggested. If you take the view that there are a series of discrete products called Mac OS X 10 - Mac OS X 10.7 and then OS X 10.8 and 10.9, then it seems anachronistic to put them all under the heading of OS X. To be a little more explicit, Mac OS X 10.6 is still Mac OS X 10.6. It isn't OS X 10.6. I guess the question is" what is the appropriate term for this family of OSes?". Although, clearly Mac OS X is different to Mac OS, the same distinction cannot be drawn for Mac OS X's and OS X's. I guess I am a little uncomfortable with the change, Mac OS X seems a better choice for the family, as most members have this name. Windows has it easy, since they have all been called Windows x. 103.1.7.171 (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC) Currently, there are seven members of the family for which "Mac OS X" was used all the time (10.0 through 10.6), one member during the transitional period where Apple used both (10.7), and two members where "OS X" is used all the time (10.8 and 10.9). In approximately five more years, at the current rate of releases, unless Apple stops putting out desktop OSes or drops the "OS X" part of the name entirely, there will be as many "OS X"-only releases as "Mac OS X"-only releases; are you suggesting that we should have waited until then to rename the article? Anachronism cuts both ways - it's just as anachronistic to put the OSes all under the name "Mac OS X" as to put them under the name "OS X". And if one considers that it's more important to care about what Apple are doing now than to care about what they did in the past, OS X is a better choice for the family. So your objections are noted, but they don't motivate me at all to consider the rename a mistake, and I think it would be a mistake to undo it. Guy Harris (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC) I don't see that the iOS goes under the iPhone OS – Georgij Michaliutin (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC) FYI: Mass changes in progress There is now a discussion at Talk:GIMP#Mac OS X and OS X about whether articles about software that supports both pre- and post-namechange versions of (Mac) OS X should be changed, and how. Samsara 15:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC) I think it makes more sense to discuss here instead in GIMP talk. - TheFox21 (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC) If the concern is that speaking of "OS X" could be interpreted as an indication that the software supports only Mountain Lion and later, why would not speaking of "Mac OS X" be interpreted as an indication that support ended with Lion? Guy Harris (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC) Absolutely, which is why I proposed to keep both monikers in the article, Gimp. Samsara 23:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC) "available on all distributions of GNU/Linux and on Mac OS X, OS X as well as Microsoft Windows XP and later versions" sounds as if it's available on: all distributions of GNU/Linux; Mac OS X; OS X; Windows XP and later; but the second and third items in the list are the same thing, so that reads a bit weirdly. If we must use both names, I would vote for something such as "available on all distributions of GNU/Linux and on (Mac) OS X as well as Microsoft Windows XP and later versions". (I would also vote for "...as well as Windows XP" or "...as well as Microsoft Windows XP", but that's another matter.) Guy Harris (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC) I agree. They are the same thing. - If you differ between OS X and Mac OS X there also should be two different Wiki pages. One for OS X and one for Mac OS X. If Mac OS X is just a redirect to OS X (like it's now) we should rename all links for version >=10.8 but let the name untouched for versions <= 10.7. The name for version <=10.7 should be Mac OS X because 10.8 was the first version without the Mac prefix. - If it refers to an unspecific version we also should rename it to OS X because the newest version is called so. - TheFox21 (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC) So do we have consensus for calling it (Mac) OS X when both old and new versions are supported? Samsara 15:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC) TheFox21's "If it refers to an unspecific version we also should rename it to OS X because the newest version is called so." sounds as if he thinks we should just call it OS X when both old and new versions are supported, if you're just saying "XXX runs on Apple's NeXTSTEP-derived UN*X", as that doesn't specify a version of said UN*X, so I don't see consensus yet. He hasn't indicated whether he's OK with (Mac) OS X. I'd tolerate that, if we have to go with that for consensus, but I'm personally also fine with just calling it OS X, as I'm skeptical that this actually would cause problems. Guy Harris (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC) @TheFox21:? Samsara 14:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Yes, I mean we should just call it OS X when both old and new versions are supported. For example: XYZ1 runs on any/all version(s) of OS X. But XYZ2 runs only on Mac OS X 10.7. However, XYZ3 runs only on OS X 10.8. --- (Mac) OS X looks unfamiliar. I never saw this notation on any webpage on the Internet. I would take OS X. It also makes no sense if we write Mac OS X and link it to OS X, as I just did it on this comment. - TheFox21 (talk) 15:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC) Well, I think if it supports both, we have to list both. "(Mac) OS X", for the reason you've said, is not a particularly good option. I don't know why this is causing such a big problem when we often list the exact versions of Windows that are supported. Samsara 18:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC) There's no "both" here - Mac OS X and OS X are the exact same thing. The current version of the GIMP is claimed, on the download page, to be available for "OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard and later"[sic], so what the GIMP page should say, if it's to reflect that, would be something such as "available on all distributions of GNU/Linux, Mac OS X Snow Leopard and later versions, and Microsoft Windows XP and later versions", to make the style of the clause for OS X similar to the style of the clause for Windows. Guy Harris (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC) I agree with Mac OS X and OS X are the exact same thing as long as you do not refer to a specific version of OS X. - OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard is actually called Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard --- TheFox21 (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC) There's one operating system, and there are two names; "Mac OS X" and "OS X" are two different names for Apple's current Mac operating system. "Mac OS X" and "OS X" aren't the exact same thing - one is the name for the operating system in question prior to Lion, and one is the name for the operating system in question starting with Mountain Lion, with both names used (with no clear pattern) for Lion. The operating system referred to by the name "Mac OS X" and the operating system referred to by the name "OS X", however, are the exact same thing, with versions up to Snow Leopard called "Mac OS X", versions starting with Mountain Lion called "OS X", and Lion called both. Think of, for example, the names "Jacqueline Bouvier", "Jacqueline Kennedy", and "Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis" are different things, but are all names for the same person. Prior to September 12, 1953, her name was "Jacqueline Bouvier"; on that date, arguably, both names could have been used :-); from September 13, 1953 to October 20, 1968, her name was "Jacqueline Kennedy" (or "Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy"); after that, it was "Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis". It would be a mistake to, when listing the children of John Vernou Bouvier III and Janet Norton Lee, list Jacqueline Bouvier, Jacqueline Kennedy, and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, as they're the same person. If, however, you had a picture of JFK and Jackie after their wedding, and you didn't just call her "Mrs. Kennedy", it would probably be best to caption it "John F. and Jacqueline Kennedy", not "John F. Kennedy and Jacqueline Bouvier". And if you were just generically referring to her, you'd probably call her "Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis". So if you're talking about a particular release of the operating system, you should use "Mac OS X" for releases prior to Lion and "OS X" for releases starting with Mountain Lion (and could probably get away with either one for Lion; my inclination would be to call it what "About This Mac" says). If you're talking about the OS in general, however, "OS X" suffices. (And, yes, "OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard" is a bit of an error; that's why I put "[sic]" after it. I was amused that the developers software that provoked this whole thread, GIMP, themselves refer to the OS using the wrong name for the release about which they're talking. :-)) Guy Harris (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC) I fully agree. A very good explanation. --- TheFox21 (talk) 11:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC) So, what we are going to do now? --- TheFox21 (talk) 12:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC) Add OS X Yosemite screenshot (I have the screenshot, I just want to put it up) And what's wrong with the Yosemite screenshot that's there now? Maybe when 10.11 "Big Sur" or whatever it's called comes out, we'll want a smaller screenshot for the Yosemite section, just as we have small screenshots for some (but not all) older releases in their sections. Guy Harris (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Thank you for your fast reply! I am a noob here, sorry. I just uploaded the screenshot of OS X Yosemite 10.10.3 on Imgur (1440x900), here it is: http://i.imgur.com/d0OOvlw.png , and I mean the little like thumbnail under Versions|Version 10.10: "Yosemite", not the screenshot on the top, it's beautiful actually. Thank you for your time! :D --JohnyDog107 (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC) OK, I've put some information on your talk page on uploading images and embedding them in your sandbox. When you have something uploaded that works as a thumbnail, add the filename here, so we can add it. Guy Harris (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Not done for now: Please see your talk page, WP:FFU, and or WP:DONATEIMAGE. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 03:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC) OS X El Capitan Needs to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.41.18 (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC) This is Wikipedia; you can be assured that, within a few hours, somebody will add it and, in fact, somebody (two somebodies, in fact) did. Guy Harris (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC) Third-party ecosystem? I think one of the big things about OS X is the large developer community, from Adobe and Microsoft on downwards. (Most of my time using a Mac is interacting with software Apple didn't make, including right now.) Are there any ways we can discuss this in this main article (at least beyond mentioning the existence of the Mac app store) in a measured fashion, such as citing measures of developer support, or Apple's awards for best third-party app? My goal would be to try to do this without it becoming a plug for specific developers. Blythwood (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC) OS X supports freeBSD and Linux software directly. Microsoft is by emulation after purchases. Microsoft is an aggressive competitor of Apple and there are many lawsuits between them, of Microsoft attempting to shut down the product line using reverse engineering. Please do not post Microsoft ads in OS/X or Apple product lines user reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.223.190 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 14 July 2015‎ (UTC) Fortunately, this is Wikipedia, where we don't do user reviews of products, so that won't happen here. :-) Guy Harris (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC) Xbox, directX are they apple based? These are NOT related to OS/X, X10, Xerox Windows. The names are probably intended as "product confusion" which, in the USA, is illegal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.223.190 (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC) Macintosh and OS/X , X does not mean 10 Whoever has locked editing and decided to cover over the fact OS/X means "Xerox Windows compatible" (X Windows, which runs on BSD, freeBSD, linux, Irix (Silicon Graphics), IBM, HP, Sun Microsystems Solaris, DEC, Hitatchi servers, Fujitsu servers, et all. The Mac started by borrowing code from X. Jobs is said to have worked with neXt Step, (OBVIOUSLY X based) in the interim, exploring GUI systems. I'm begginning to get ticked off at you people in a serious way, confusing people with some X means 10 , but not version 10 rotten trash. Furthermore such idiocy, even if it were true and it isn't: has absolutely nothing to do with a wikipedia "encyclopedic" Description. Rather the opposite i feel it is an attack from OUTSIDE the USA on a all American product line (once wholey made in the USA, as Sun Micro, DEC, HP had been). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.223.190 (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC) Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2015 Hi there, can you please edit? In the table of when the OS X versions are released, it says El Capitan is in Beta 3, but it is now fully released following Windows 10. the article is outdated in this part and please edit the last version of El Capitan's date to 29 july 2015, and yes it relesed at 29 july 2015. Please edit this any wikipedian people or ClueBot NG! --LmaoUser (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Sincerely, LmaoUser, a Wikipedian LmaoUser (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2015 Hi there, can you please edit? In the table of when the OS X versions are released, it says El Capitan is in Beta 3, but it is now fully released following Windows 10. the article is outdated in this part and please edit the last version of El Capitan's date to 29 july 2015, and yes it relesed at 29 july 2015. Please edit this any wikipedian people or ClueBot NG! --LmaoUser (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Sincerely, LmaoUser, a Wikipedian LmaoUser (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2015 Change: OS X 10.11 "El Capitan" was announced on June 8, 2015. Apple's described this release as containing "Refinements to the Mac Experience" and "Improvements to System Performance" rather than new features. To: OS X 10.11 "El Capitan" was released on September 30, 2015. This release as contains "Refinements to the Mac Experience" and "Improvements to System Performance" rather than new features. TheRughster (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC) I fixed the first sentence. I left the second one mainly intact, as it's just quoting Apple, but fixed it to say "Apple described this release as...". Guy Harris (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC) absurd The letter X in OS X's name refers to the number 10, a Roman numeral. It is therefore correctly pronounced "ten" /ˈtɛn/ in this context.[11][29] However, a common mispronunciation is "X" /ˈɛks/.[30] The first versions of apple GUI used code from X windows Apple had paid for / had authority to use from Xerox. The X is from Xerox Windows / workstations. When you see: "WM_MOVE": that's original Xerox programmer constant. Microsoft stole some of Apple's modified X code to make Win3.1 and apple DID sue (and lost on that one). Apple customized and such for Motorola processors and at the advent of closure (when Intel and or ARM became a wise choice), to fix the over-customized problem apple took in part of BSD (or freeBSD - I can't say which for sure). The first OS/X on the shelf, and I remember the box and place in the store entrace clearly, said right on the back of the box it utilized X-Windows. Infact it was at a time many companies were releasing DOS alternatives with new GUI - and one major other one utilized X-Windows as well (however, it was not nearly a full GUI like macintosh). It is true that at one time Apple was using X release 10 - however not necessarily fully or on the first OS/X release. And the back of the box said nothing about which version of X. Furthermore, most releases of OS/X used the powerPC or intel, and are base on X11 (R6, some from XFreee86, intel based), 11 not 10. The 10 release Apple used at one time was a proprietary release and modified from the open one to include some proprietary technologies. Postscript dps display (in addition to postscript printing). This made the graphics display "subsystem" wonderful for .ps or Adobe (pdf) work - and it's still a feature many systems fail to show and avoid payments for the patents of. OS doesn't mean X, and Apple did want everyone to know OS/X was X-Windows based. Never was the version which X much of a question. Infact the proprietary X10 used was not widely used/purchased at all (with some important exceptions). YET another problem mr, is that you'll confuse people. OS/X 10 doesnt' mean 10 10. Your injecting frustrating formulas into the product logos. MEANING OS/X is not apple os v. 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.223.190 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 14 July 2015‎ (UTC) The first versions of apple GUI used code from X windows Apple had paid for / had authority to use from Xerox. No, they didn't. They wrote their own code for the GUI. The X is from Xerox Windows / workstations. The X in the X Window System is from "it's the next letter after W", the W Window System being a precursor to the X Window System. Microsoft stole some of Apple's modified X code to make Win3.1 and apple DID sue (and lost on that one). No, Microsoft may have made some of the UI visuals similar to Apple's, but there's no evidence that they used any code (given that the Apple GUI code was mostly 68k assembler, it'd require a substantial to make an x86 window system out of it). Apple customized and such for Motorola processors and at the advent of closure (when Intel and or ARM became a wise choice), to fix the over-customized problem apple took in part of BSD (or freeBSD - I can't say which for sure). Apple originally wrote the Macintosh software for Motorola 68000 family processors, first the Motorola 68000 and then successors such as the Motorola 68020. They then moved to PowerPC processors. OS X was a descendant of NeXTSTEP; the original NeXT hardware also used Motorola 68000 family processors (starting with the Motorola 68030). However, the lower layers of NeXTSTEP were based on Mach and BSD, and thus were mostly written in C and thus reasonably portable to other processors. The higher layers were written in Objective-C, and thus also reasonably portable. Apple updated the Mach kernel to a newer version, and got updated BSD code from both FreeBSD and NetBSD. When Apple bought NeXT, they decided to make the next version of OS X on NeXTSTEP, so the resulting OS was also reasonably portable. They kept it running on some x86-based PCs internally, and eventually switched to x86. The first OS/X on the shelf, and I remember the box and place in the store entrace clearly, said right on the back of the box it utilized X-Windows. Your memory is failing you; the box most definitely would not have said any such thing, as it was not based on X11. Apple had, and still has, their own graphics layer, Quartz. It is true that at one time Apple was using X release 10 - however not necessarily fully or on the first OS/X release. X11 was released in 1987, three years after the Mac came out. Apple would have used X10 only if they had an X server for the Mac (so that GUI apps UN*X boxes could display on the Mac) in the first few years; however, the X servers for the Mac were third-party products, not products from Apple. Furthermore, most releases of OS/X used the powerPC or intel, and are base on X11 (R6, some from XFreee86, intel based), 11 not 10. No release of OS X is based on X11. Some releases of OS X came bundled with an X11 server so that 1) applications using X11-based toolkits could be compiled and on OS X and 2) GUI apps running on other machines on the network can display on the Mac. However, starting with Mountain Lion, they don't bundle X11; instead, they bundle some stub libraries that, when an X11 application running on the Mac starts, a dialog pops up offering to let you download XQuartz from MacOSForge - XQuartz is an Apple project, but it's offered not as a core part of OS X, but as an add-on. The 10 release Apple used at one time was a proprietary release and modified from the open one to include some proprietary technologies. Postscript dps display (in addition to postscript printing). This made the graphics display "subsystem" wonderful for .ps or Adobe (pdf) work - and it's still a feature many systems fail to show and avoid payments for the patents of. You're thinking of NeXTSTEP and its PostScript-based display system, not anything from Apple. NeXTSTEP didn't use X11, they did their own graphics layer. OS doesn't mean X, and Apple did want everyone to know OS/X was X-Windows based. Given that it wasn't X-based, there's no way Apple would have wanted everyone to think it was. The "X" comes from the fact that OS X was, nominally, the 10th version of Mac OS, following Mac OS 9; however, that's a bit misleading, given that OS X doesn't take much if any code from any of the preceding versions of the Mac OS. Guy Harris (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC) The original web pages describing the original tech specs for the original OS X, which would have been consistent with any packaging at the time, are still available and publicly archived (see references). Note that X Windows is not mentioned as a core technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C445:1319:8DB3:6C1A:16EB:5167 (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC) References