|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mac OS article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Mac OS has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Technology. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|WikiProject Computing / Software||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Apple Inc. / Macintosh||(Rated B-class, Top-importance)|
- 1 Kernel
- 2 Classic Mac OS
- 3 Power Macs and OS 9.2
- 4 The term 'Applesoft'
- 5 Quartz is not “PDF-based”
- 6 Command line in Classic?!
- 7 XP on Mac hardware
- 8 Fair use rationale for Image:MacOS 152mm 4c.png
- 9 original System software reintroduced in 1997?
- 10 Name of the Mac OS
- 11 Mac OS Classic hold-outs
- 12 Vandalism?
- 13 Main screenshot is of Lion?
- 14 Viruses
- 15 Screenshot
- 16 History
- 17 Major Restructuring
- 18 Latest preview 10.10 (Build 14A298i) (July 21, 2014; 0 days ago) [±]
- 19 Steve Jobs as developer of OS X?
- 20 Contradiction?
- 21 So what to do with this page given the latest name for Apple's desktop/laptop/server UNIX?
- 22 Requested move 7 July 2016
The infobox for the Mac OS lists kernel as "Monolithic, later nanokernel". Just out of curiosity, when exactly did the Mac OS use a nanokernel? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mipadi (talk • contribs) 21:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
How is the original Mac OS kernel a monolithic kernel? If you look at the definition of a monolithic kernel there are significant omissions in the Mac OS kernel - and the existence of extensions calls this into even more doubt. Can someone corroborate this definition?Djm63y2k (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- The first Mac OS with a nanokernel was Mac OS 8.6. It should be added to this article. --Michiel Sikma 20:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- No, 8.6 included an updated nanokernel. -- Steven Fisher 14:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Classic Mac OS
We really should have an article devoted to Classic Mac OS, even though the term is not used in the official Apple documentation, which prefers the cumbersome locution “versions of Mac OS prior to OS X”. Everybody knows what Classic Mac OS means, and it is universally used in the non-Apple technical literature, for example the recent book by Hillegass and Dalrymple on OS X programming. Also, from an operating systems viewpoint, Classic Mac OS and Mac OS X are completely different, though of course there is continuity if one views them as desktop environments.
The question is, do we move this article, or create a new one? Moving this article would make sense, as the infobox is clearly devoted to Classic Mac OS, stating as it does that 9.2.2 is the last stable version. On the other hand, it would require a rewrite, specifically removing the OS X section. Thoughts? Brian Tvedt 10:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
- This is the article you seek, devoted to Mac OS. Using the term Classic Mac OS is much more closely related to the Classic Environment for Mac OS X than the set of Macintosh operating systems that precede Mac OS X. So it is confusing to do that. Just move any in-depth content specifically on Mac OS X to Mac OS X. 126.96.36.199 01:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Power Macs and OS 9.2
The article incorrectly states that PowerPC-based Macs ship with OS 9.2 which is wrong as only PowerPC up to the G4 can run OS 9, the G5 cannot.
- Please sign your comment. --188.8.131.52 00:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- The article states that PowerPC-based Macs ship with OS 9.2 as well as OS X. The context is a paragraph about the Classic Environment. The G5 can run the Classic Environment. --184.108.40.206 01:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The term 'Applesoft'
I notice that there is a disambiguation page for 'Applesoft' that links both to Applesoft BASIC (what I think of as 'Applesoft') and to this page ... yet there is absolutely no mention of the word 'Applesoft' on this page. If indeed the Mac OS division was referred to as 'Applesoft', this is the first I've heard of it, which doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong, but if it was, then it should be mentioned on this page, and if it isn't then there shouldn't be a disambiguation for it, which just results in mystification. I don't know what the policy is, but there shouldn't be any information disseminated on a disambiguation page ALONE by my way of thinking, especially by way of associating a term obliquely with something that most people familiar with the word would never think of it as referring to. If there is a reference to Applesoft vis-a-vis the Mac OS, then it should be cited here. If not, then the term should be undisambiguated, IMHO.--220.127.116.11 05:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Apple at least was, for a time, annoyingly calling their applications software department Applesoft (not to be confused with with Claris, which was an actual legally discrete sub-company). That should be mentioned here (and maybe was at one time), or the Applesoft disambiguation page should not point here.
—überRegenbogen (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Quartz is not “PDF-based”
- The section Obsolete technologies states that Quartz is “PDF-based”. This is incorrect. See the Use of PDF in the Quartz (graphics layer) article for details. --MichaelAhlers 17:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Command line in Classic?!
- The "classic" Mac OS is characterized by its total lack of a command line(.)
Hm. Are there any experts around who can explain what that thing is that you get with the key combo cmd + power (and occasionally with program crashes)? It definitely looks like a command line of some sort, altho I've never been able to figure out if actually does anything. ("G" will exit, tho.) So is this a "secret command line" or something yet more arcane? --Tropylium 19:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- It's a debugger. – Mipadi 00:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
XP on Mac hardware
Someone can tell me, please, if i have an APPLE Notebook with Mac operating system installed, can i delete it and install windows xp? Teo
- This page is for discussion of the related article—not even the subject of that article. This is waaaaaaay off topic. See Boot Camp (software) for information about what you're asking. (And please sign your messages. I could have put this on your talk page if i knew where it was.)
—überRegenbogen (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:MacOS 152mm 4c.png
Image:MacOS 152mm 4c.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
original System software reintroduced in 1997?
"The original form of what Apple would later name the "Mac OS" was the integral and unnamed system software first introduced in 1984 and later in 1997 with the original Macintosh."
- Agreed. Confusing statement. If I had to guess, it's a reference to the OS being sold as a separate software package that could run on other computers - like the Power Computing hardware - separate from the Macintosh products. That was the point of rebranding it as "Mac OS" as I recall, and the first time it was sold separately from a Macintosh. But the statement I found just confusing. I'm pretty sure there was a sense that the Mac ran "Macintosh System Software" and it was referred to that way at least from some point in the developer documentation and in upgrades, like when upgrading to System 7 in early 1991. It was just referred to as System 6, System 7, and then around System 7.6 the little "Mac OS" logo and renaming occurred. And it was licensed out briefly. - Owlmonkey (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Name of the Mac OS
7.6 was not the first use of the name "Mac OS". The first was Mac OS 7.5.1 (although 7.6 was the first /boxed/ version to display the new moniker on its packaging. Upon booting 7.5.1, the screen will say "Welcome to Mac OS". The name did not surprise many Mac aficionados, as "MacOS" (no space) was already in use colloquially. Walter Ian Kaye 04:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boodlums (talk • contribs)
- I don't know that I would say it was already in common use, but certainly the Mac OS name and logo had been widely announced through the media a bit before they first appeared in the 7.5.1 update. In ordinary speech it didn’t really displaced ‘System’ until Mac OS 8 (and there are still people who say ‘System Ten’). David Arthur (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Mac OS Classic hold-outs
The previous 'discussion' under this title was about numbers of users still using Mac OS. While I have no numbers, the anecdotal evidence provided is almost meaningless. There are hold-out, but they have been vastly outnumbered for years.
Not my main point, though.
The article claims that some users held out because OS X ran more slowly on their hardware. This simply is not true. Users held out because of familiarity with Mac OS, because their hardware was not compatible, or because there wasn't equivalent OS X native software that replaced what they needed. In no case did any mac hardware run more slowly running OS X than running Mac OS. That includes hardware that apple would not officially support for upgrading, but could still be upgraded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soch (talk • contribs) 16:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Main screenshot is of Lion?
Why is the main screenshot of the Mac OS article of a version that Apple hasn't even finished yet? When people say "Mac OS" they most often think Mac OS Classic. Shouldn't the main screenshot be of an older version of Mac OS? Or at very least, Snow Leopard, which is the current version. Althepal (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
- Lion is a version of Mac OS, as every OS X version is. I was actually wondering why the screenshot is not of Mountain Lion. FDMS4 (talk) 00:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
A common misconception among Mac users is that Mac OS is immune to viruses. Unfortunately viruses do exist for Mac OS though they are few in number. Below is a list of some of the most commonly found Mac Viruses over the past several years.
In 2006 there was a Trojan worm discovered known as OSX/LEAP that used iChat as its method of transfer. If an infected computer would iChat a friend a message would show up on the friends computer claiming to have pictures of then-upcoming OS X Leopard. Once the message was opened and downloaded the Trojan worm infected any recently opened application with malicious code rendering them useless. 
In 2007 three Zlob Trojan viruses known as OSX/DNSChanger, OSX/RSPlug, and OSX/Jahlav crossed over from Windows to Mac OS. The Mac OS versions had the same objective as the original Windows worms which was to alter the users DNS and direct its traffic to malicious websites by posing as a needed video codec to access internet pornography. 
In 2008 F-Secure discovered Mac's first malicious cleaning tool called MacSweeper. It mimicked a then-legitimate cleaning tool name Mac Sweeper and claimed to find problems in the users system and then asked for payment to fix the problems. 
In 2009 a backdoor spyware named OSX/KROWI infected computers through pirated versions of iWork 2009 and Adobe Photoshop. Once on the users computer it connected to a remote network allowing others to enter the computer without authentication. 
In 2011 Intengo discovered a OSX/FLASHBACK, a malware that uses Java vulnerabilities to enter a user's computer and harvest user information. The most common package of FLASHBACK was in a malicious Adobe Flash installer but there are newer packages that are disguised as a software update.  Ptapp22 (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Why did you find it necessary to mention this in the talk page? The article doesn't mention anything about viruses, nor does it point out the idea that no viruses, or little viruses exist in Mac OS. Groink (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Why is this screenshot of snow leopard? That is old. Perhaps update it to this? It's a screenshot of mountain lion, pretty much a new install. Another option would be to update it to update it to File:Osx-mavericks-screenshot.jpg. --Umadbrocuziamhere (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
If nobody objects, I will begin restructuring this article to focus on System versions 1-9, removing information that pertains specifically to OS X. The infobox on this page, to start, duplicates heavily the page on OS X, even though the article lead refers specifically to the prior version of Mac OS, before version 10.
Furthermore, the OS X section should be removed/merged with the OS X article, or at least, in a way that refers to that as the primary article on the subject.
Lastly, the screenshot, which refers to a version of OS X, should be changed to something from the classic Mac OS era to comply with the new factual accuracy.
- I assume this is dropped, since nothing has happened. But just in case... of course that is objectionable, as it's historical revisionism and thus substantially illogical and false. There is no new factual accuracy of history on this subject whatsoever, and sections of a topic do not get removed when a full article exists. The section exists, containing a summary which refers to the main article, exactly as it presently does. Even your entire assessment of the article (the infobox etc) as it existed on the day of your assessment is just false. Generally speaking, the overall structure and general content is essentially correct and complete (aside from citations and line editing). Sorry to say it! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 04:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Latest preview 10.10 (Build 14A298i) (July 21, 2014; 0 days ago) [±]
- That was apparently a temporary error, because it's working. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 00:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Steve Jobs as developer of OS X?
Can anybody provide a citation of this? I'm as big a fan of Steve as the next guy, but as far as I know, he didn't make any contributions to the OS X codebase. And if he did, then surely that would just be listed as 'Apple', not 'Steve Jobs'? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- It doesn't say anything about 1977 now - which is good, because the Mac itself wasn't introduced until 1984. Guy Harris (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
So what to do with this page given the latest name for Apple's desktop/laptop/server UNIX?
This page covers two different OSes:
- the original Mac software, which started being called "Mac OS", with a capital "M" and a space between "Mac" and "OS", in the 7.6 release;
- the Mach+BSD-based UNIX, which started being called "Mac OS X", with a capital "M", a space between "Mac" and "OS" and an "X", and then got called "OS X", and is now being called "macOS", with a lower-case "m" and no space between the "mac" and "OS".
So the OS X page probably needs, either now or when Apple's desktop/laptop/server UNIX's 13th release comes out, to be renamed "macOS", and updated to give the additional naming history.
But what about this page? It shouldn't be called "macOS" or "MacOS", as that should be the name for the page about Apple's desktop/laptop/server UNIX - no "classic" version of Apple's system software was ever called "MacOS" or "macOS". Should it just be turned into a page for the classic OS, with no page covering both OSes? Should it remain "Mac OS", with a hatnote pointing people to "macOS" for the current OS? Or should something else be done? Guy Harris (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
- In my opinion, OS X should now considered "finished", and macOS should be changed to talking about all the macOS versions since Sierra, and this page should be separate from both pages. -- 19:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Please move the actual OS X page to macOS. macOS is what it's called, it's confusing to people when an article about a cat says "cat used to be called dog. So this article is called dog even though this is a cat." Makes no sense. Jake Petroules (talk) 06:09, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- There's already a discussion on Talk:OS X about that. Not everybody seems to think it's the right thing to do now, as opposed to after the public release of macOS Sierra. (I'm fine with doing it now, but I wouldn't go on a crusade to do it now if the consensus is to wait.) Guy Harris (talk) 07:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Requested move 7 July 2016
|It has been proposed in this section that Mac OS be renamed and moved to Macintosh operating systems.
A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within half an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
Mac OS → Macintosh operating systems – In order to distinguish this page from the soon-to-be macOS (currently OS X), this should be renamed to something more generic like Apple desktop operating systems, Macintosh operating systems, or the like. This also affords a clearer discussion of System 1 through System 7, and futureproofs it for possible future names. 21:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Eventhorizon51 (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Given that Mac OS also covers, however briefly, A/UX, it doesn't only cover OSes that have had "Mac OS" in their names at some point in their history, so that move might make sense, although perhaps it should be limited to Macintosh operating systems from Apple so we don't get "hey, what about Linux?" (other than mkLinux) or "hey, what about Windows?" or.... Guy Harris (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose: Machines running Mac OS X, now OS X, soon macOS(?), have not been called "Macintoshes" in years. Given that there's no real connection as operating systems (only as intellectual property) between Mac OS 9 (and earlier) and what's presently OS X, these should be split. We can use a disambiguation page to distinguish between OS X, Mac OS 9 (etc.), A/UX, and so forth. The concept "an OS [from anyone] that runs on a machine [of any kind] that is capable of [also] running an OS [any of them] ever published by Apple" is not really an encyclopedic topic, but that seems to be where this has been heading. I call "train wreck" shenanigans on that. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that Mac OS X/OS X/macOS should be removed from this article and treated as the separate operating system that it is; I personally find the distinction between the two to be poorly explained the way the articles currently are, and feel that this would help clarify any confusion. WikiRedactor (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)