Talk:Mac operating systems

Kernel

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.

We should also have a Classic Mac OS category, where we can put things like ResEdit, MacsBug, System Folder, and Mac OS memory management (the last article should be renamed).

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. 204.42.22.216 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. --131.103.137.155 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. --131.103.137.155 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.--206.248.134.152 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)

See MacsBug. —überRegenbogen (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2008 (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."

In what way was the original system software reintroduced in 1997? This nonsensical assertion needs to be either clarified or removed.
—überRegenbogen (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Vandalism?

Possible vandalism? claims apple claim that the mac OSX(10) does not crash, this is true can be a fib at times —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.210.32 (talk) 19:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

So just delete it :) It'd be less work for others. 1exec1 (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2010 (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)

Viruses

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)

References

Screenshot

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)

History

Early development history? Reading this Mac OS seems to appear by itself - no names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.167.16.211 (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Major Restructuring

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.

Again, anyone have objections? I plan to start this project soon. Lucas "nicatronTg" Nicodemus (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

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) [±]

July 21 is more than 0 days ago. --Jobu0101 (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That was apparently a temporary error, because it's working. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 00:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, now it's working again. --Jobu0101 (talk) 10:53, 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'? 118.209.10.175 (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction?

One part of the article says that Mac OS was introduced in 1977, while another part says it was introduced in 1984. ZFT (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2015 (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. --Emphrase 19:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

In actual fact, "macOS" is just a new name for the same Darwin-based desktop/laptop/server UNIX that was originally called "Mac OS X", renamed to "OS X", and again renamed to "macOS", and OS X should be renamed to "macOS". Guy Harris (talk) 19:24, 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

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. While the current situation is unsatisfactory, a mere move will not rectify it, and the proposed title seems misleading. Additional discussion is required to find the best solution. If there is one, that is. No such user (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

---

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. — Supuhstar * — 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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  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)

And that way we have a page for the classic Mac OS, just as we have one for Darwin+Cocoa+Finder+apps and A/UX. Guy Harris (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Making a page for the "classic" Mac OS

We're already seeing people who think this page has the wrong name, because Apple's OS for Macs is called "macOS". We'll probably see even more when macOS Sierra comes out.

I think, and some other people thing too, as per the two previous discussions, that it might be a good idea to have a page for the classic (pre-Mac OS X) system software, covering only that OS and not Mac OS X/OS X/macOS, and not covering the other OSes from Apple, such as A/UX and mkLinux and Macintosh Application Environment, either.

I'm not sure what the right name for that page would be - should it be "Classic Mac OS", or "Mac OS (classic)"? I don't think it should be called just "Mac OS", as Apple's current UNIX was originally called "Mac OS X". If we don't call this "Mac OS", should there be a "Mac OS" disambiguation page, pointing both to the page for classic Mac OS and the page for Mac OS X^W^W^WOS X^W^WmacOS?

Template:Mac OS History and Template:Apple Inc. operating systems already contain lists of Apple OSes, in case somebody wants such a list, so I'm not sure we need a page "List of Apple operating systems" or "List of Macintosh operating systems", or something such as that.

I propose that we pull any non-classic Mac OS-related stuff out of this page and, if it's not already in the pages for the other OSes, move it there, and make this page be a page for classic Mac OS.

Any comments? Guy Harris (talk) 02:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

This is an interesting conundrum. Both Mac OS and History of Mac OS have sections within them that mention Mac OS X/OS X/macOS and link to the corresponding main articles. The bottom of History of Mac OS also has a "timeline of Macintosh operating systems" that encompasses both.

Now, this article is not particularly well organized, either. Very little of it pertains to the Classic Mac OS, while the rest has to do with OS X, MFS/HFS and resource forks, the transition to Intel processors, 68k/PowerPC Macintosh emulators, Macintosh clones, OSx86, and other OS projects by Apple.

I think it would be possible to combine this article together with History of Mac OS into one article called Classic Mac OS, which I think is an acceptable common name for the operating system we're talking about.

What, then, to do with "Mac OS"? I think it would be acceptable to redirect "Mac OS" to "macOS", with a message at the top:

"Mac OS" redirects here. For the classic Macintosh operating system (1984–2001), see Classic Mac OS.

I discovered there's already a page called List of Apple operating systems. It might be worth it to rename that page to Apple operating systems and then flesh it out using the leftover content of this page, turning it into a broad overview of everything in Template:Apple Inc. operating systems, beginning with Apple I/II/III/Lisa and going all the way to macOS/iOS/watchOS/tvOS. It would be analogous to the Microsoft Windows page.

This would be a pretty significant undertaking. What do you think? —Samvscat (talk) 00:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE 1: In the interest of WP:BOLD, I have created a new page that combines Mac OS and History of Mac OS into one article, which will be named "Classic Mac OS". Please see the proposal at Talk:Mac OS/Classic Mac OS and let me know what you think.

The only information that did not make it into either article is here: Talk:Mac OS/Mac OS on non-Apple-labeled computers. Most of this information is already covered in the macOS article, albeit written a little differently.

Note: Guy Harris, I am particularly interested in your thoughts since you seem to be the de facto curator. —Samvscat (talk) 07:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I deserve credit for being a curator, but...

Talk:Mac OS/Classic Mac OS looks really good as a future Classic Mac OS page.

Once that happens, making Mac OS a redirect to macOS, with the appropriate hatnote, seems OK, although, before that's done:

1. links to Mac OS that are really just referring to the classic Mac system software should be fixed to go to Classic Mac OS;
2. links that are really referring to all the mainstream OSes for the Mac should perhaps have the text rewritten to distinguish between the classic Mac system software and Apple's main UNIX for Macs, linking to Classic Mac OS in the part that talks about the former and to macOS in the part that talks about the latter;

so that references to the classic Mac system software don't end up pointing to the page for Apple's current UNIX-for-Macs instead.

(I've changed a couple of articles to do that already.)

Your proposed "Apple operating systems" page also makes sense to me. Guy Harris (talk) 08:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I will do a sweep of "what links here" sometime later today and see if I can pick up any others whose links might need to be changed or clarified. Related to that, I'm also cleaning up some of the templates that have to do with Mac OS/Apple OSes.

Once that is done, I will go ahead and make the WP:BOLD move soon-ish unless there is strong objection to it happening.

I think by making the "Operating systems by Apple Inc." template robust enough—as I just did—it will obviate the need for an article covering them all, unless someone else wants to take on that task. —Samvscat (talk) 10:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Fine to have a "Classic MacOS" page, but note the old one may have links from outside of Wikipedia.. (similar issue to, Power/PowerPC page merge elsewhere..) comp.arch (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

That is a good point. We will make sure the hatnote at the very top of macOS will point anyone looking for Classic Mac OS in the right direction, per Wikipedia guidelines on not creating a disambiguation page when there are only two major outcomes. —Samvscat (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is a mess. It would have been enough to simply rename Mac OS → Classic Mac OS and incorporate History of Mac OS into it. Instead you created another article and redirected two articles, one with an existing talk page (this one). This is a major change and not at all uncontentious and I do have some reservations on History of Mac OS as well as redirecting Mac OS to OS X. Why all the rush all the time?–Totie (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect, the state of the previous Mac OS article was a mess, and I took action to try to make it better because no one else had stepped up to the plate after a month passing by from the original suggestion being made. Let me describe the thought process so hopefully you do not feel it was a rush job that wasn't thought out with care. Note that I did not create a brand new article; it was a rename.

I knew that both Mac OS and History of Mac OS had long histories of edits and talk/discussion, which made the choice of which one to use as the basis a little difficult. (Note: Is it feasible and/or desirable to merge the edit or talk history?) However, the majority of the content that pertained to the classic Mac OS was already in the History of Mac OS article—so I fleshed out that article, added the rest of the content carried over from Mac OS, helped rewrite and organize it, and renamed it Classic Mac OS.

At that point, the remaining content in Mac OS had to do with the current macOS, so I made sure it was all covered there. The one remaining choice was where to redirect Mac OS. I looked over Wikipedia's disambiguation guidelines, asked myself "What is the primary meaning of this term, now?", noted that the lead and infobox in Mac OS referred to the current macOS, and so I chose macOS as the destination. I imagined a user searching for "mac os" with or without the space in the middle would be better served going to the same place: the article about the current Mac operating system with a hatnote referring to the classic one. I think a redirect discussion would be warranted if you'd like to start one.

I hope this makes sense; thanks for reaching out. —Samvscat (talk) 08:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The rationale for choosing the primary topic seems sound to me. Dresken (talk) 08:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE 2: This is a WP:BOLD action. Following a discussion (immediately above), this page's content was merged with effort and care into "History of Mac OS", which is now Classic Mac OS. The term "Mac OS" will now redirect to macOS.

I understand that the common response to bold actions is an undo/revert, but I encourage you to take a look at the discussion above and read the new Classic Mac OS article, which has been greatly improved from the old article on this page, which was a hodgepodge of items that were added over the years and was never truly organized from the top down. Now it has been thought out and considered as a coherent whole.

There is a hatnote at the top of both macOS and Classic Mac OS that will point readers to the other page, per Wikipedia guidelines on not creating a disambiguation page when there are only two major outcomes. I will continue looking for pages that link to Mac OS that should instead link to Classic Mac OS now, and I encourage you to do the same.

If you have any suggestions for improvement, please discuss here or just do it! Thank you. —Samvscat (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Great work, well done. I fixed a incoming link to show my support. Dresken (talk) 06:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not persuaded that Mac OS should be redirected to OS X. In my opinion, we should keep Mac OS for "classic" Mac OS and use a hat-note to refer to macOS.–Totie (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Dresken, I appreciate it. Please see my comment above, Totie. —Samvscat (talk) 08:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE 3: I see Mac OS is now a disambiguation page. In some ways, that makes sense: the previous version of this article did not know what it wanted to be. Was it the place for information about the current system, the old system, or all Mac-related OSes? The answer: all of the above. Incoming links to this page—many of them still out there—were targeting any one of those things. I still think a redirect and hatnote would be sufficient, but I think it's up for debate which destination is more relevant:

• You could very well argue the majority of incoming links here might have meant to refer to the classic Mac OS, so that's where it should redirect. (Also note that many references to the classic Mac OS specifically were already linking to History of Mac OS, which was renamed last week to become the Classic Mac OS article.)
• On the other hand, let's face it: "Mac OS" and "macOS" are the same name. It is purely a stylistic difference. The current macOS is infinitely more relevant to people today than a system of 15-30 years ago, and the infobox/lead of the previous article primarily referred to the current macOS, so that's where it should redirect.
• Finally, as I floated previously, maybe there should be an article that's a brief overview of Apple's Mac-related OSes. But if there is, the name of that page needs to be something other than "Mac OS". Perhaps "Mac OS family" or "Apple operating systems"? It's way too confusing to have "Mac OS" and "macOS"—the same name—be separate articles.

I don't know if there's a correct answer to that conundrum, but it's an interesting thought. The previous content of this article, and the intent of the incoming links to it, were all over the place. In many respects, this has been a problem all along. It was only exacerbated by Apple's rebranding of "OS X" to "macOS": with Apple making the name of its new system the same as its old system, now we are forced to do something about it. —Samvscat (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You can expect a bot to slap an {{Incoming links}} tag on the new dab page shortly. You have the choice of either:

1. Disambiguating 1800+ links
2. Making one of the two the primary topic, with a hatnote to the other
3. Restoring an earlier version of the page, as a broad-concept article about all Mac operating systems, past and present, and their variant MOS:TM names (with a space, without a space, capital "M" or lower case "m", with a version number "X" or not...

Hmm, Macintosh operating system and Macintosh operating systems. Template:Timeline of Macintosh operating systems is a timeline for which we have no single corresponding article. That's transcluded in both History of macOS and Classic Mac OS. It does show there was an overlap between "classic" and "X" between 1999 and 2002, so they really are two different operating systems. I recall the massive number of link changes I made to implement this RM just five months ago. So I was a little disheartened to just see this new RM. Hopefully we don't go to all the effort of changing links from Mac OS → Classic Mac OS, only to see Apple come out with a new version in a few months, that they decide to call OSmac. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

"Disambiguating 1800+ links" is definitely a pain - I first tried fixing all the links to Mac OS, then said "what about just doing the non-video game links and letting Somebody Else(TM) handle them", then said "what about just picking what look like the "most important" non-video game links", then said "even that's a huge task". That's probably going to have to be a group effort - and is a necessary cleanup if Mac OS either redirects to macOS or is a disambiguation page.

"Making one of the two the primary topic, with a hatnote to the other" is going to leave a significant number of Mac OS links going to the wrong place, no matter which is made the primary topic - a lot of Mac OS references in the articles I fixed thought it was talking about either 1) the classic OS or 2) both families of OS, and a number of them even thought it meant Mac OS X/OS X/macOS.

"a broad-concept article about all Mac operating systems, past and present" would, I guess, work, although if it's truly about all Mac operating systems (presumably "from Apple"), "Mac OS" would be the wrong name. In some articles that I cleaned up, Mac OS was being used in that fashion, which I fixed to separately mention classic Mac OS and macOS; as I remember, a lot of those tended to deal with UI topics common to both OSes, such as "option+FFF gets you the XXX character" and the like, so that might be what an article covering both classic Mac OS and macOS would cover. (It certainly wouldn't cover the code base, or the architecture, or how to program for it, as they're completely different in that regard, with the exception of using the original version of Carbon for both.)

And even if Apple marketing were to get bored and rename the OS again, that wouldn't affect the effort of changing links from Mac OS to something else, as presumably "macOS" would become a redirect to "OSmac", and all we'd need to do would be to get rid of double redirects (assuming some bot doesn't just do that before us). Guy Harris (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

You nailed it and underlined my observation: incoming links to Mac OS were not at all consistent; they could be targeting the classic OS, the current OS, both, or all Mac-related operating systems.

For what it's worth, in addition to the timeline of Macintosh operating systems, there's also a template that encompasses all Macintosh operating systems — so, I could potentially see the utility of a "main article" for these items that covers the whole group: a brief introduction to the common/shared elements of these systems, followed by brief sections (roughly organized the same way as the template) for 1. Classic Mac OS, 2. Mac OS X/OS X/macOS, 3. Other projects.

This could also serve as a more coherent "main article" for Macintosh#Software that doesn't go off the rails into details that belong in other articles.

If that were to happen, I'd recommend a couple of things: keep it very lean (do not duplicate the macOS infobox or top section); and write it here at this article (Mac OS) and then propose to move + redirect this article to a final name such as "Macintosh operating systems" or "Mac OS family".

Thoughts? Needed or not? –Samvscat (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 1 October 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. We have clear consensus that the proposed descriptive title is superior to the current one. As noted below, a number of incoming links will still have to be sorted to the more specific articles; hopefully editors knowledgeable about the subject can take the lead on that. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

---

Mac OS → Macintosh operating systems – It came to my attention that a great number of pages were linking to Mac OS, some in a way that suggests "Macintosh operating systems" in general, encompassing the classic Mac OS, the current macOS, and Apple's related Macintosh OS projects. So, I rewrote this article as a broad and concise/brief overview of Apple's Macintosh operating systems, very closely following the template of the same name. By giving this article a clear focus and renaming it as such, we will eliminate the naming confusion that currently exists between Mac OS and macOS. This will follow the naming convention of other current articles such as Macintosh, Macintosh hardware, and List of Macintosh software. Samvscat (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support - there really isn't a thing called "Mac OS", there are two different things that have had "Mac OS" in the name; there's the classic Mac OS, which got the name in Mac OS 7.6, then there was Mac OS 8, and finally there was Mac OS 9 at the end, and there's macOS, which started its life as various versions of "Mac OS X" before passing through "OS X" and then "macOS". The page in question now discusses multiple OSes for the Mac, not all of which had "Mac OS" in their names at any point, so the new name is the appropriate name (We still need to keep cleaning up links to Mac OS to either link to classic Mac OS, link to macOS, or link to both of them.) Guy Harris (talk) 16:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment This has gotten confusing - "History of Mac OS" was rewritten and renamed to "Classic Mac OS" - this article is now rewritten to basically be the equivalent of a history of Mac OS and now renamed to something else. Do you have some examples of the articles are prompting this action? I had a glance at a few "links here" - but they don't seem like ones that fit your description of the issue. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I do agree it's confusing, and I think it became that way as soon as we were faced with the prospect of Mac OS vs. macOS. I was considering the content of these articles more than their titles. "History of Mac OS" held an overview and all the detailed version/release information of the classic Mac OS and had become the de facto page for information about the classic Mac OS, so in my mind it made the smoothest transition to Classic Mac OS. This article, on the other hand, was about that system and macOS and other Macintosh OS concepts. Incoming links could be targeting any one of them.

I originally thought it would be fine to redirect this article to macOS, but when it later got changed to a disambiguation page by other users, I knew there was more to consider. I kept running into articles about applications that bridged both systems (ex. 1 2 3) or concepts or technologies that are shared among Macintosh operating systems (ex. 1 2 3). As Guy Harris pointed out, "there really isn't a thing called Mac OS", so I thought it would make sense to follow the example set by the template, timeline, and other similar articles in the Macintosh series. Thanks, Samvscat (talk) 00:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

• Enthusiatic support. Thanks for saving the day, Samvscat! Disambiguation of all those incoming links was looking like an onerous task. While as Guy says, we should still change a lot of these links to go to the more specific OS that's intended, this takes the pressure off from the need to do that immediately, and allows the disambiguation to continue in the background at a more pedestrian pace, so as not to upset the work queue for other, higher priorities. This is a very nice overview that you've written. This is the Mac equivalent of Windows, who also have two major branches on their family tree: Windows 9x (and its DOS-based predecessors) and Windows NT (and its successors). – wbm1058 (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I agree with your assessment, and I'm glad you pointed out that this page is analogous to the Microsoft Windows family article, with the specific series articles analogous as well — Windows 9x : Windows NT :: Classic Mac OS : macOS. —Samvscat (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support - The title perfectly fits the breadth of the article, and is likely to continue doing so far into the future. It removes ambiguity while still being intuitive. — Supuhstar * — 21:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support – The most practical solution, for readers and editors alike. — JFG ^talk 13:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I don't think this article should have a Template:Infobox OS template

As I've said elsewhere, there isn't a thing that is "Mac OS". There are two things, the classic Mac OS and macOS, and their pages have infoboxes describing them; an infobox trying to describe both of them would either have to give, for many of its parameters, a string giving two items, one for the classic Mac OS and one for macOS, or omit those parameters as you can't, for example, say what platforms "MacOS" supported/supports (classic Mac OS never supported x86 except in the unreleased Star Trek; macOS never supported 68k).

Furthermore, the intent is that this page describe OSes from Apple for Mac other than those that had the string "Mac OS" in their names at some point in their history, which makes it even harder to describe the topics of this page in a single {{Infobox OS}} template invocation.Guy Harris (talk) 07:22, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I was on the fence about that, too. I followed the example from the Unix article, which tried to do a similarly impossible task and thus left out any specific information about latest releases. If the infobox goes, it might be nice to keep the screenshot of the original Macintosh system software as an illustration of the GUI concept that ties together most of these systems. —Samvscat (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I tried implementing this and I think it's better now. Thanks for suggesting this. —Samvscat (talk) 08:29, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

related systems

the related systems section was last updated in 2015. some research should be done, maybe add AudioOS or whatever — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chriscush765 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Other "Macintosh" operating systems not made by Apple

It occured to me that there are other various OSes out there that run on Macintosh hardware that weren't developed by Apple. The example that immediately comes to mind is Be OS by Be Inc., but I'm sure there were others as well. This would be a very small section towards the end of the article. Would this make sense to add to this article? - Paul^T+/_C 16:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)