![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
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 discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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)
I still think the whole thing is ridiculous -- again. Dravick ( talk) 05:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Multics Family![]()
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)
window.onload = replaceText; var articleViewURL = document.URL; var endString = "&action=edit"; var editURL = articleViewURL.replace("/wiki/", "/?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)
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)
I oppose suggested change to Multics. Three reasons;
-- Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:21, 16 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)
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)
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I Think the programming languages should be removed until we have good and reliable references. GoldRenet ( talk) 13:17, 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)
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:
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
"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)
{{ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
Osx 10.7 was released now.
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 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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
|latest preview version = 10.7.3 (11D24) |latest preview date = December 2, 2011
Change this section to:
|latest preview version = 10.7.3 (11D33) |latest preview date = December 16, 2011
Sources: 9to5mac, 13 hours ago
Nacho2150 ( talk) 17:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Mac App Store was introduced as a free update to existing Snow Leopard users in 10.6.6 [1]. The current article says that the support was in Lion.
Mydude123 ( talk) 02:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() |
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
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.
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) |
![]() |
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
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.
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) |
![]() |
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
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.
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) |
![]() |
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
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.
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) |
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Why is the screen shot of "lion" and not "mountain lion". Obtund 13:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
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:
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 [1] | September 25, 2001 | 10.1.5 (June 6, 2002) | Unknown |
Mac OS X 10.2 | Jaguar | May 6, 2002 [2] | August 24, 2002 | 10.2.8 (October 3, 2003) | Unknown |
Mac OS X 10.3 | Panther | June 23, 2003 [3] | October 24, 2003 | 10.3.9 (April 15, 2005) | Unknown |
Mac OS X 10.4 | Tiger | May 4, 2004 [4] | April 29, 2005 | 10.4.11 (November 14, 2007) | Unknown |
Mac OS X 10.5 | Leopard | June 26, 2006 [5] | 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 [6] | 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 [7] | 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 [8] | July 25, 2012 [9] | 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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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.
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
What kind of Directory structure does OS X use ? 80.200.227.141 ( talk) 09:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Please also cite a
reliable source; another Wikipedia article
won't suffice.
Rivertorch (
talk)
05:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
This article includes numerous uncited statements. Tezero ( talk) 02:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
88.227.167.128 ( talk) 09:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
v10.10 seems a weird numbering.-- 85.103.248.22 ( talk) 01:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Pronunciation SuggestionOS 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)
OS X name changeAccording 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)
FYI: Mass changes in progressThere 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)
Add OS X Yosemite screenshot (I have the screenshot, I just want to put it up)
OS X El CapitanNeeds to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.41.18 ( talk) 19:13, 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)
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 10Whoever 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)
absurdThe 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 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. [1] [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C445:1319:8DB3:6C1A:16EB:5167 ( talk) 16:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC) |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
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 discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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)
I still think the whole thing is ridiculous -- again. Dravick ( talk) 05:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Multics Family![]()
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)
window.onload = replaceText; var articleViewURL = document.URL; var endString = "&action=edit"; var editURL = articleViewURL.replace("/wiki/", "/?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)
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)
I oppose suggested change to Multics. Three reasons;
-- Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:21, 16 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)
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)
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I Think the programming languages should be removed until we have good and reliable references. GoldRenet ( talk) 13:17, 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)
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:
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
"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)
{{ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
Osx 10.7 was released now.
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 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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
|latest preview version = 10.7.3 (11D24) |latest preview date = December 2, 2011
Change this section to:
|latest preview version = 10.7.3 (11D33) |latest preview date = December 16, 2011
Sources: 9to5mac, 13 hours ago
Nacho2150 ( talk) 17:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Mac App Store was introduced as a free update to existing Snow Leopard users in 10.6.6 [1]. The current article says that the support was in Lion.
Mydude123 ( talk) 02:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() |
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
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.
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) |
![]() |
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
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.
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) |
![]() |
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
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.
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) |
![]() |
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
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.
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) |
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Why is the screen shot of "lion" and not "mountain lion". Obtund 13:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
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:
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 [1] | September 25, 2001 | 10.1.5 (June 6, 2002) | Unknown |
Mac OS X 10.2 | Jaguar | May 6, 2002 [2] | August 24, 2002 | 10.2.8 (October 3, 2003) | Unknown |
Mac OS X 10.3 | Panther | June 23, 2003 [3] | October 24, 2003 | 10.3.9 (April 15, 2005) | Unknown |
Mac OS X 10.4 | Tiger | May 4, 2004 [4] | April 29, 2005 | 10.4.11 (November 14, 2007) | Unknown |
Mac OS X 10.5 | Leopard | June 26, 2006 [5] | 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 [6] | 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 [7] | 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 [8] | July 25, 2012 [9] | 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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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.
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
What kind of Directory structure does OS X use ? 80.200.227.141 ( talk) 09:40, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Please also cite a
reliable source; another Wikipedia article
won't suffice.
Rivertorch (
talk)
05:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
This article includes numerous uncited statements. Tezero ( talk) 02:15, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
88.227.167.128 ( talk) 09:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
v10.10 seems a weird numbering.-- 85.103.248.22 ( talk) 01:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Pronunciation SuggestionOS 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)
OS X name changeAccording 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)
FYI: Mass changes in progressThere 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)
Add OS X Yosemite screenshot (I have the screenshot, I just want to put it up)
OS X El CapitanNeeds to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.41.18 ( talk) 19:13, 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)
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 10Whoever 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)
absurdThe 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 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. [1] [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C445:1319:8DB3:6C1A:16EB:5167 ( talk) 16:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC) |