Talk:MacOS/Archive 16

User Grufo updated the lead to say "non-free" rather than "proprietary," on the grounds that it requires a legal understanding. I disagree; "proprietary" is a very common and well-understood term in general, and in software specifically. However, rather than just revert it I'd like to hear what other editors think and get a consensus. What do other OS articles say? MFNickster (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Microsoft Windows says "non-free" in the lede, but that's just because user Grufo recently changed it to mention the non-free/proprietary status. It says "proprietary" in the infobox. The same applies to Solaris (operating system).

HP-UX and IBM AIX say "proprietary" in the lede.

Tru64 UNIX and IRIX say nothing in the lede, although IRIX speaks of the processors as being "proprietary". UNIX System V also says nothing in the lede, and the infobox just speaks of it as being "closed source".

The pages for various (non-UN*X) IBM mainframe OSes say nothing in the lede; OS 2200 also says nothing. Burroughs MCP says "proprietary".

OpenVMS says "proprietary" in the lede. RSX-11 says nothing in the lede. Data General AOS and HP Multi-Programming Executive also say nothing in the lede. Guy Harris (talk) 01:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not dogmatic about this but I'd say proprietary is better or no worse, because macOS is free with ownership of a supported Mac. So non-free in this sense also requires legal understanding because you need to understand that "free" in "non-free" is being used in the "free as in speech, not free as in beer" sense. But you could also say proprietary isn't clear-"does that mean that only people who work at Apple are allowed to use it?" If anything, "closed-source" is the clearest at expressing the concept-that Apple controls the source code. Regardless, I don't think any of these is needed in the lead, since it's clear from the context and something, I think, that's well-understood about Apple products in general. It doesn't need to be the fourteenth word in the article, it's fine in the infobox. Blythwood (talk) 02:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Yup - free software talks about "free as in speech", but I suspect that non-technical people, and even many technical people not that involved with free-as-in-speech software, wouldn't realize that, so "non-free" also has an intended meaning not obvious to all of the audience, although they could click on the link to find out.

But I'm +1 on just removing it from the lede; those who care probably already know it's mostly not free-as-in-speech, and convincing more people to care is not the article's purpose. Guy Harris (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, implemented. Blythwood (talk) 04:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, just read the discussion after reverting Blythwood's edit. I think that a software that requires you not to attempt to control your own machine is not just a "graphical OS", but it is a "non-free graphical OS". And an encyclopedia, especially one that relies on MediaWiki, has the duty of at least not hiding it. Apple itself has no problems at all at defining its own operating system as non-free, why should Wikipedia have problems with that? --Grufo (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Where did Apple ever refer to MacOS as "non-free"? MFNickster (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@MFNickster In the license? Apple "retains ownership" on the product you have paid for (and to "retain ownership" literally means that the product is non-free).

The Apple software (including Boot ROM code), any third party software, documentation, interfaces, content, fonts and any data accompanying this License whether preinstalled on Apple-branded hardware, on disk, in read only memory, on any other media or in any other form (collectively the “Apple Software”) are licensed, not sold, to you by Apple Inc. (“Apple”) for use only under the terms of this License. Apple and/or Apple’s licensors retain ownership of the Apple Software itself and reserve all rights not expressly granted to you. You agree that the terms of this License will apply to any Apple-branded application software product that may be preinstalled on your Apple-branded hardware, unless such product is accompanied by a separate license, in which case you agree that the terms of that license will govern your use of that product.

— Software License Agreement for macOS Catalina^[1]

Add to it that "non-free" is a widely accepted label for such kind of products. --Grufo (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

So Apple themselves did not use the term "non-free"? MFNickster (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Right, synonyms are bad and we need to stick to the actual text. So, maybe instead of "a series of non-free graphical operating systems" we could have "a series of unbuyable^[2] graphical operating systems given in concession by Apple to the users who are willing to let Apple retain the ownership of their operating system". Does that sound more politically correct? --Grufo (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

"Non-free" is an accepted label for that among computer people. It's not well-known beyond computer people. I wouldn't expect that "non-free", meaning what macOS and others are, is widely accepted or widely understood by the readership of the English Wikipedia. Vadder (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

This is starting to feel very tilting-at-windmills. The logical conclusion of your argument is that we need to put "non-free" at the start of every article on of closed-source software and digital content. That would be dreadful prose style and a real failure of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. (I mean, I specialize in editing font articles: it'd be dreadfully tendentious if every article on a commercial font began "X is a non-free font....", or our article on the Harry Potter series began "Harry Potter is a non-free book series...". Generally, a lede should tell people the key things they need to know, sometimes the most interesting, surprising or commonly misunderstood things, about the subject. I don't think the average person reading this article is under the mistaken impression that Apple is a charity and keen to help them install macOS on their Samsung Galaxy. It's not like Wikipedia doesn't include criticism of Apple, either, I mean we have a colossal article on it. It's just a question of whether it needs to be at the very start of the article. Blythwood (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Nobody talks about charity here, as long as you own what you buy the software is free software, even if you have paid millions for having it. And, for answering your question, since the "normal" thing when you pay for something is that you own it, my answer is yes, every Wikipedia article that talks about a product that deviates from a "normal" trade should specify it. And definitely should not be misleading. Take for example the Wiki article about Microsoft Windows, it says that Windows is "sold by Microsoft", but that's just wrong, Windows as well is not "sold", but given in concession. --Grufo (talk) 22:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

As a long-time free-software supporter I am disagree on using "non-free" lable for proprietary software, because not all people know what does mean "free software" to understand what does mean "non-free"! also such term is ideologicall, I am just agree on "proprietary software" and specially "freeware". -- Editor-1 (talk) 05:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

OSx is not freeware. --Grufo (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it is relevant that Mac OS X (ten) follows the naming using roman numerals of UNIX System V (five), referencing the history of OS and moving on from Mac OS 9... 86.11.51.106 (talk) 07:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that says Mac OS X is named in reference to UNIX System V? The Mirror Cracked (talk) 07:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The page currently claims that Mac OS X is since 10.6 unix-certified. For most of the versions it cites opengroup website with the registration, but for 10.7 Lion it cites just Apple marketing materials. And if you dig deeper, you find out, that 10.7 was not actually certified https://www.mail-archive.com/austin-group-l@opengroup.org/msg02006.html

I propose to delete the claim, marketing materials shouldn't be used as credible source, when primary source, The Open Group, doesn't support it. 77.48.70.42 (talk) 12:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Weird, but that mail message looks authoritative, especially if, as is probably the case, it's author is this Andrew Josey. The article should probably explicitly note that 10.7 was, for whatever reason, not certified, and give that mail message as a reference. Guy Harris (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to MacOS has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

60.135.70.234 (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Guy Harris (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Finder icon macOS Yosemite.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to MacOS has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The section of "OS X 10.11 El Capitan"

From: OS X 10.11 El Capitan was released on September 30, 2015. Similar to Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard, Apple described this release as containing "refinements to the Mac experience" and "improvements to system performance" rather than new features. Refinements include public transport built into the Maps application, GUI improvements to the Notes application, adopting San Francisco as the system font for clearer legibility, and the introduction of System Integrity Protection.

To: OS X 10.11 El Capitan was released on September 30, 2015. Similar to Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard, Apple described this release as containing "refinements to the Mac experience" and "improvements to system performance" rather than new features, except the introduction of System Integrity Protection (SIP). Refinements include public transport built into the Maps application, GUI improvements to the Notes application, adopting San Francisco as the system font for clearer legibility.

Reason: The modification is to move the phrase "the introduction of System Integrity Protection" as to emphasis that it is a "new feature". People who do not like the SIP, although it adds the security, may want to stay in the Yosemite. W3!m9? (talk) 04:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Partly done. Instead of moving SIP, I've just reworded the sentence to remove the "new features" bit. There was no way Apple's going to say that there's not that many new features anyways. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 13:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't a mention be made of the demo Jobs showed at Macworld 2000? It was (I believe) an internal demo predecessor to 10.0. Gold333 (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

http://cdn.cultofmac.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/os_x_aqua.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gold333 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Apple has introduced new File System named Apple File System (APFS) in 2017. Piyushluniya (talk) 09:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I.e., the file system mentioned in the first and second paragraphs of macOS#macOS? Guy Harris (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

The "This article is about..." hatnote is there to point people interested in operating systems for Macintosh other than macOS at the appropriate articles.

None of those operating systems are versions of macOS - the classic Mac OS, and all non-macOS operating systems mentioned in Macintosh operating systems, are separate operating systems from macOS, not versions of macOS - so the hatnote should not speak of other "versions". Guy Harris (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I initially wrote it like that to avoid repetition, but given the point of a hatnote is to unambiguously point the reader to the correct article, your version is better. - Novov T C 11:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

While macOS Big Sur and macOS Monterey use the name macOS, they are officially not versions of Mac OS X and it is therefore confusing to see them grouped with all other Mac OS X operating systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesomemaxbahanda (talk • contribs) 05:18, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Apple has, so far, had two primary lines of operating system for the Mac:

• The classic Mac OS, which was the first OS shipped with the Mac, and which originally had no official name. It later got the name "Macintosh System Software", and, after that, was renamed "Mac OS".
• The NeXTSTEP-based operating system, which has had the name "Mac OS X" (perhaps to try to tie it to the classic Mac OS, even though it shared very little code with that OS, and had a different user interface), "OS X" (for unknown reasons, given that the "Mac" was dropped in 2012 with Mountain Lion, several years after the OS for the iPhone was given the name "iPhone OS" rather than "OS X"), and then "macOS" (perhaps to tie it in to the rest of Apple's NeXTSTEP-based OSes, as the classic Mac OS was long dead but iOS was the OS for their best-selling devices, and to make the version numbers change the way the version numbers of the other OSes change from year to year).

So Apple's marketing department has been quite busy with name changes.

They also decided, originally, to number the version of the latter OS as 10.x, changing the x with each major release, even though the "X" got dropped from the name in 2016 with Sierra. They finally got around to dropping that idea in 2020 with Big Sur.

So don't get confused by the version number decoration Apple's marketing department uses. Big Sur is not a brand new OS, it's just the release of the NeXTSTEP-based OS for the Mac that follows Catalina; it's not a new code base, or a new set of APIs, or even that major a UI change (and there have been UI changes before that). This is only confusing to those who take the version number style change seriously; people shouldn't do that.

So there's no move to be made here. "Mac OS X" hasn't existed since 2012, and "OS X" hasn't existed since 2016; everything from 10.0 through 12 is a version of the NeXTSTEP-based OS. Guy Harris (talk) 06:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

macOS is just a naming mechanism. You can see in the console that all versions from macOS Sierra 10.12 to macOS Catalina 10.15 are still internally referred to as Mac OS X. This is not present in new releases of macOS, and therefore a new article should be created for all versions of macOS past 11. Apple has closed the door on version 10 and I do not see why version 11 and 12 are included in an article about Mac OS version 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesomemaxbahanda (talk • contribs) 12:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

"macOS is just a naming mechanism." So are "Mac OS", "Mac OS X", and "OS X" - they're all marketing decoration, as are version numbers such as 9, 10.0, 10.1, 10.2, ..., 11, 12, ....

This is not an article about "Mac OS version 10". This is an article about Apple's NeXTSTEP-derived operating systems for Mac, which has had three different names (used inconsistently by Apple, with Lion sometimes being referred to as "Mac OS X" and sometimes being referred to as "OS X", and with some of the "macOS"-named versions reporting "Mac OS X" in the sw_vers command for backwards compatibility - that's still true in Big Sur, where, if you set the SYSTEM_VERSION_COMPAT environment variable, sw_vers reports "Mac OS X" as the ProductName and "10.16" as the version), and has had two version numbering schemes (one maintaining the notion that the major version is 10 - long past the point when that needed to be part of the "this is just the successor to Mac OS 9" story, i.e. past the point when they changed the name to be part of the "this is a member of Apple's family of OSes" story - and one changing the major version with each release, the same way all other members of that family do).

"Apple has closed the door on version 10" Apple closed the door on version 10.0 when version 10.1 came out. They closed the door on version 10.1 when version 10.2 came out. ... There's nothing about the transition from Catalina to Big Sur that makes it more significant, in anything other than the way the marketing department has decided to do version numbering, than the transition from Mojave to Catalina. Yes, it adds support for a second instruction set, but Apple's done that before without making a Brand New OS.

This is just Apple's "Solaris 7" moment; Solaris originally had the SunOS 4.x-based 1.y releases and the SunOS 5.x-based 2.x releases, possibly because they expected eventually to make a completely new 3.0 with Shiny New Modern Technologies (at least when I was there, there was some talk about an "object-oriented" OS), but, following Solaris 2.6, they didn't release Solaris 2.7, they released Solaris 7.

(And, as per my note above about backwards compatibility, sometimes you have to keep old names and version-numbering styles around in APIs and other internal places so as not to break software not prepared to see a name or version-numbering style change. Heck, even with the dropping of "Mac" from "Mac OS X", sw_vers on OS X 10.9 Mountain Lion reports "Mac OS X", not "OS X". Apple appears to have decided that it's time to push the latest branding for the OS into some APIs and commands, with backwards compatibility tricks such as "unless the app is built with the Big Sur SDK, pretend it's "Mac OS X 10.16" so as not to frighten the horses" and "if SYSTEM_VERSION_COMPAT is set, when running scripts, pretend it's "Mac OS X 10.16" so as not to frighten the horses".) Guy Harris (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The reasoning above shows why Windows went from 8.1 to 10, skipping 9 to avoid confusion with Windows 9x. Anyhow, macOS is still the same underlying operating system, the Intel support will become obsolete in a few years. Between editors the reasoning is that this is the UNIX based macOS, so we haven't moved past the X in NeXT or uniX, we only stopped using the Roman Numeral X. macOS Monterey or macOS Big Sur already have their own articles, with emphasis on California locations rather than eleven or twelve OR the fact that it is the seventeenth or eighteenth release. Shencypeter (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to MacOS has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

For the sake of consistency, I request that the paragraph/section for macOS 12 Monterey - be revised to include the public release date of October 25, 2021. Thank you. Sjwards (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Sjwards, I've  done that for you. :) --Ferien (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to MacOS has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the system requirements table, the table claims that OS 12 needs 12.13GB of RAM. This is incorrect. The system requires 4GB of RAM. 12.13GB is the download size of the OS from the App Store. Unable to correct myself do to protected status — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.108.246 (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. Guy Harris (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The install time for macos 10.15 - 12 is listed at 6-8 hours. That seems hilariously long and I suspect the work of trolls. Can someone at least add the citation needed tag or proper citation? I cant remember the last time an OS took 6 hours to install on anything. MrBradricks (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to MacOS has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

PhalloPlop (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

install time of MacOS monterey & BigSur nearly 12 minutes - 8 hours source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiEWl2dyXGQ

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

What does everyone think about adding checksums for each version? I would recommend creating a new section rather than in-lining them into the existing sections for each version. I would lean towards only listing the sha256 sum from the uncompressed tarball for simplicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukewalsh23 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

What is the encyclopedic value of these checksums? Primefac (talk) 07:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to MacOS has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The current stable release of Big Sur including bug fixes macOS 11.6.7 (Build: 20G630) Leroydouglas (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Under "Software Compatibility",

This edit request to MacOS has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change Chrome OS to ChromeOS, as it is the new name of the OS. Fatalerror404123 (talk) 09:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done MadGuy7023 (talk) 09:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

There's:

• an ugly "box art timeline", too small to really see anything; hard to update with new releases
• a transcluded template listing a bunch of (frankly) trivia (Darwin version, processor support, application support)
• an ugly "Timeline of versions"
• and then a release history with subsections for each major release.

Hugely redundant. Half of these elements are also present at macOS version history, with no greater depth. How do we fix this mess?

For macOS, I propose:

1. We remove the box art, template, and timeline
2. We make a simplified table with release dates and version numbers, and box art/logo in each row.
3. Either:
   1. We keep the subsections for major releases, as is. (I lean towards this option)
   2. We delete them and just have the simplified table (#2), with bluelinks for each release, and let the leads of these articles take care of things.
4. Delete "List of macOS versions and the software they run" table, and "Hardware compatibility" table. Unencyclopedic cruft.

For macOS version history, I propose:

Keep in mind the standard is not whether information is useful, but whether a high-quality, reputable encyclopedia would have it. If you post comments below, please clearly indicate which numbered #proposal you support, and which you oppose. DFlhb (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to MacOS has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Ezekiel Sam Gaviola (talk) 07:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add a screenshot for macOS Monterey.

 Declined - there is already a screenshot on the page. We do not need more than one here. MadGuy7023 (talk) 08:41, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I removed semi-protection today. Per Wikipedia:Rough guide to semi-protection, "the only way to know if protection is still needed is to see if disruption returns without the protection." So, let's all keep an eye on it. If you think it needs to be reesabilished per the reasons stated in that guide, please ping me or (if you've got the sudo) sudo yourself. —GoldRingChip 15:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Please see my change to the lead.

Technically: iOS was directly based on macOS. iPadOS, watchOS, and tvOS were directly based on iOS. and audioOS is directly based on tvOS. They're very technical/minute differences, and it's still correct to say that they're all derived from macOS. Maybe we should explain this somewhere in the article, since they're all a significant part of macOS's legacy. DFlhb (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to MacOS has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2601:203:4383:12F0:8D03:C9:7259:A92A (talk) 05:52, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Not arabic numerals, but it must be corrected to say Hindu numerals.

 Not done: Likely factual errors. Lightoil (talk) 08:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Would you please add the {{pp-protected}} template? Becuase it's semi-protected. Thank you for your cooperation. 172.56.216.64 (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done HouseBlaster^talk 21:50, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to MacOS has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hey, I am an older apple fan (i'm 15) and have been a big fan of aple overall. I'm not here to share my life story or anything, but pplease give me permission to add macOS 14 (Sonoma) that has been recently released to this page! It will be greatly appreciated..! Cosmozinity (talk) 19:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

oh and btw, i'm traveling soon so don't be suprised if I don't reply quick! Cosmozinity (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Tollens (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to MacOS has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

macOS 14 Sonoma also seems NOT to be UNIX 03 certified by the Open Group – macOS 13 Ventura seems to be the latest one – according to:

https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/ https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/xy.htm https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/apple.htm

So, the sentence

"The first desktop version, Mac OS X 10.0, was released on March 24, 2001. All releases from Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard[8] and after are UNIX 03 certified,[9] with an exception for Mac OS X 10.7 Lion.[10]"

should be changed accordingly to:

"The first desktop version, Mac OS X 10.0, was released on March 24, 2001. All releases from Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard[8] and after are UNIX 03 certified,[9] with an exception for Mac OS X 10.7 Lion[10] and macOS 14 Sonoma."

Please check/verify. Maybe someone additionally officially ask the Open Group for confirmation and reference that answer too, like in the case of Mac OS X 10.7 Lion? 95.116.186.67 (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/xy.htm is weird, as it lists Monterey, not Ventura. The other pages currently doesn't list Sonoma, but I don't know 1) whether the first official release build has to be the one submitted, in which case that build may not have been available until 2023-09-21 and not known to be the official release build, rather than a release candidate, until 2023-09-26, and 2) how long the process takes until you end up with something on the Open Group web site (2022 Wayback Machine archives of the Apple page don't show Ventura until December, but they don't show any archives at all from 2022-08-13 to 2023-11-30, which may indicate no changes in that time frame or may just mean the changes weren't seen by the Wayback Machine because it didn't bother to look for some reason), so, at this point, without further information from the Open Group, we can't conclude anything about the certification status of Sonoma.

So I changed that part to say that everything from Leopard to Ventura has been certified, except for Lion. That needs no updating if Sonoma never gets certified, unless and until 2024's macOS Oxnard gets certified (in which case we add Sonoma to the list of exceptions), and can be updated to Sonoma (with a reference) if it does get certified. That part is now in a form that more clearly indicates that it needs to be updated for every release (which has always been true, given that a reference is needed for each release).

I'll see whether the Open Group suggests a way to contact them about this and, if so, will ask them (and tell them that the xy page needs an update). Guy Harris (talk) 19:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

"https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/xy.htm is weird, as it lists Monterey, not Ventura."

Yes. This inconsistense is very strange, and I've never seen it before.

"The other pages currently doesn't list Sonoma, but I don't know 1) whether the first official release build has to be the one submitted, in which case that build may not have been available until 2023-09-21 and not known to be the official release build, rather than a release candidate, until 2023-09-26, and 2) how long the process takes until you end up with something on the Open Group web site".

As I remember correctly: the mention of the latest certified macOS on the Open Group's website in the last years, always correlated with the release date, usually on the very same day of the official release date or at the latest in the next few days after the official release date. Let's wait for the next few days to see whether there will be a change relating Sonoma or not.

"so, at this point, without further information from the Open Group, we can't conclude anything about the certification status of Sonoma"

Yes. But it's somewhat strange.

"So I changed that part to say that everything from Leopard to Ventura has been certified, except for Lion. That needs no updating if Sonoma never gets certified, unless and until 2024's macOS Oxnard gets certified (in which case we add Sonoma to the list of exceptions), and can be updated to Sonoma (with a reference) if it does get certified."

OK. That's a good idea. Thanks.

"That part is now in a form that more clearly indicates that it needs to be updated for every release (which has always been true, given that a reference is needed for each release)."

Yes. Since the certification process of the product by the Open Group has to be taken and the conformance (or non-conformance) be proven and certified every year to be further certified.

"I'll see whether the Open Group suggests a way to contact them about this and, if so, will ask them (and tell them that the xy page needs an update)."

Thanks. Maybe the open group mailing list or email address (Andrew Josey) linked as source for Lion in [10]: https://www.mail-archive.com/austin-group-l[at]opengroup.org/msg02006.html? 95.116.186.67 (talk) 20:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes. This inconsistense is very strange, and I've never seen it before. The issue on the xy.htm page could just just be a failure on the part of the web site maintainers. Apple, on several occasions, has botched one or more of the individual release pages under https://developer.apple.com/news/releases/, e.g. omitting one of the OSes, so it may not signify anything at all other than somebody at The Open Group forgetting to update it. I commented on that via TOG's comment submission form, and also separately asked about Sonoma on the same form. Guy Harris (talk) 07:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

"https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/xy.htm is weird, as it lists Monterey, not Ventura."

"The issue on the xy.htm page could just just be a failure on the part of the web site maintainers. […] so it may not signify anything at all other than somebody at The Open Group forgetting to update it."

Seems to be corrected meanwhile, now it also lists Ventura, like the other pages in question. But still no certification listing for its successor, Sonoma. 77.6.128.207 (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, they replied to my comment on the xy.htm page, and another comment I made that https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/xv7.htm didn't have a "Filter by Standard" button, indicating that both had been "fixed", which they now are, so those presumably were just unintentional errors.

As for the product register, they say an update has been scheduled for tomorrow, so we'll see what's in that update. Guy Harris (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

What's in that update is "Sonoma is now registered". Guy Harris (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks for updating the entry.

Additional: what do you think of the idea, also to link under [8] or [9]

this confirmation on Quora, published a year ago from Terry Lambert, by the time Apple Core OS Kernel Team and technical lead on several projects over 8 years at Apple, https://www.quora.com/What-goes-into-making-an-OS-to-be-Unix-compliant-certified – especially in view of the 1st URL in [8] regarding Lions alleged and advertised UNIX certification vs. what is said in [9]) that Apple had to be carried out hunting, was forced to certify, because they were sued by the Open Group for false statements and misleading advertising regarding UNIX certification? 77.3.48.205 (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Correction: "because they were sued by the Open Group for false statements and misleading advertising and unjustified use the UNIX® trademark for a product without being certified accordingly at that time." 77.3.48.205 (talk) 21:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to MacOS has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the macOS information card on the right, latest release of macOS appears to be 14.1 (23B74) (October 25, 2023; 19 days ago), however, the actual latest version of macOS is 14.1.1, released on Nov. 7, 2023. Powersagitar (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing this out. DFlhb (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Technical details, if you're interested:

That infobox field is kept in a separate template, Template:Latest stable software release/macOS, and transcluded into this page, that way it can be updated in multiple places at once. But we have separate templates for the latest macOS version, and the latest macOS Sonoma version, and only the latter was kept up to date. What I've done is change the macOS template to transclude the Template:Latest stable software release/macOS Sonoma template; that way they'll always be in sync. Next year when a new release comes out, we can just switch the transclusion again to the new release. DFlhb (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to MacOS has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

macOS (/ˌmækoʊˈɛs/;[6] previously OS X and originally Mac OS X) is an operating system developed and marketed by Apple Inc. since 2001. It is the primary operating system for Apple's Mac computers. Within the market of desktop and laptop computers, it is the second most widely used desktop OS, after Microsoft Windows and ahead of Linux (including ChromeOS).

the last part where gnu/linux is refered as just linux is wrong and should be changes so it is more true and correct 81.234.150.230 (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: The name of the family of operating systems in reliable sources is simply "Linux", so that's what we use here. Tollens (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The software, macOS, is now onto version 11. So it shouldn't be called OSX anymore, X letter meaning the older version 10. So there should be a new redirect tag leading to this macOS page. Is the word "macOS" okay, or is it 1-2 digits too long? ObiKKa (talk) 06:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

What do you mean by a "redirect tag"? Mac OS XMac OS X, OS XOS X, and OSXOSX all redirect to macOS, and have done so for quite a while, given that the OS has been called "macOS" ever since macOS 10.12 Sierra, several years before macOS 11 Big Sur. Guy Harris (talk) 06:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I severely doubt Apple is going to sue Wikipedia for a screenshot of their operating system, considering screenshots/videos of macOS and iOS have appeared in thousands of places across all media types, including media made with profit in mind. I'm not sure why we're stuck with pictures that are lower resolution than computers from the 90s. This has been enacted across all pages related to macOS, destroying what used to be very pretty and readable pictures. This also clutters Google images. Machintosh-hd (talk) 01:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia follows Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. - Aoidh (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

The first word of a sentence is always capitalized even if the particular word isn't always--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 04:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters that is primarily true, though exceptions exist and per MOS:TMCAPS this seems to be one of them. - Aoidh (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The build number found in Template:MacOS versions at the column "Most recent version" in the "macOS 14" row is incorrect. It should be "23G80" instead of the existing "23F80". Please see https://developer.apple.com/news/releases/?id=07232024d Lalov001 (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Fixed in this edit. Guy Harris (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The table Timeline of releases has a color code key that uses pink for Old Version, and yellow for Older version, yet the "Older versions" are newer than the "Old version".

I am pretty sure the intent of "Older version" is "older relative to "Latest". Perhaps this would be better called "Recently superseded but still maintained.".

 Gwideman (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the wording is confusing.

However, that table is produced by the {{Version}} template; changes to the labels for the colors would have to be made there, and would affect many other pages that use that template as well, so this issue should be discussed at Template talk:Version, not here. Guy Harris (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

See Template talk:Version § "Old" versions are usually older than "Older" versions. Guy Harris (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I just changed the template to use "Old" for both. Guy Harris (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The article has a History and Release history section that seem to cover the same information, and the Release history appears to be a near copy-paste of the MacOS version history article. Should the two sections be merged? Should the version history article be merged into this article or be repurposed as a more general History of MacOS article? Recent versions in both are almost only described as "name, announced then, released then" and sometimes highlight not particularly notable changes as "key changes," if done at all. 2A02:A020:5C1:95C8:C51A:234C:2CB6:7E10 (talk) 13:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to MacOS has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to edit the 'latest preview' section. A new macOS beta released today - macOS 15.2 Beta 1. Thomashardyy08 (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide the source and specific text you would like to add. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

And that's not something that comes from this page, it comes from a template. There's a [±] box after the release information; click on it, and you can edit the preview version. (It's now up to date.) Guy Harris (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

This edit request to MacOS has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please swap the "originally known as Mac OS X; previously shortened as OS X" to "previously known as OS X; originally known as Mac OS X", as it wasn't officially known by the Mac OS moniker at all when it was shortened as such.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ⸺(Random)staplers 06:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I want to add a new version which will be announced at this years Worldwide Developers Conference. The info found online lists a completely new version number, OS codename and possible design changes.

Would this be allowed? https://www.macrumors.com/2025/06/01/macos-tahoe-name-leaked/

Thanks, Urbanracer34 (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

No, because WP:CRYSTALBALL. Official confirmation is just nine days away. You can wait that long. I see you asked this same question at the Teahouse and got more or less the same response there. I suggest you take it seriously. GSK (talk • edits) 19:14, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Understood. I'll hold off. Urbanracer34 (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

This edit request to MacOS has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"Intel (x86): x86-64 (10.4.7–)" to "Intel (x86): x86-64 (10.4.7–26)". Apple has announced that x86 mac's final update will be 26. ^[1] 2603:9000:BC00:149E:2520:5339:5FF3:8B15 (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Done. (Somebody had previously made it 27; I fixed that.) Guy Harris (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Suggest making Liquid Glass the Default User Interface, thank you. 59.152.203.38 (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Liquid Glass is a design language for user interfaces; it is not a full user interface. Guy Harris (talk) 03:30, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

And Aqua (user interface) refers both to the full user interface and the design language, which is unfortunate, but I haven't heard any name that applies to the parts of the user interface that are independent of the design language.

Microsoft Windows says the user interface is the Windows shell, rather than saying Windows Aero or Metro or some other design language that Microsoft have used. Guy Harris (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

This edit request to MacOS has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the Security section, please change, “Only the latest major version of MacOS receives patches for all known security vulnerabilities…” from MacOS Sequoia to MacOS Tahoe. Thank you, ~2025-36813-80 (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done - Umby 🌕🐶 (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. ~2025-36813-80 (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2025 (UTC)