Talk:OS X Mountain Lion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Mountain Lion

There already is an older version called Puma. Are these separate animals (as opposed to 2 different names of the same animal)?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The cougar page says "The cougar (Puma concolor), also known as puma, mountain lion, mountain cat, catamount or panther, depending on the region, is a mammal of the family Felidae, native to the Americas." The panther page is a disambiguation page; apparently, "panther" is name used for several different flavors of large cat in different regions. I don't know which of those was the "panther" used for the 10.3 release. Guy Harris (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of what the actual real world Genus or Species the actual animal is, Apple inc. can use whatever name they choose for each of its operating systems. In reality, it makes no difference if a Puma and a Mountain Lion are the same animal. OSX Puma and OSX Mountain Lion are two different operating systems.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The support status should say 'In development' not 'Developer'.

Support Status: Developer does not make any sense. I corected it to 'In development' as the software is in development.--86.179.133.164 (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Infobox image

The infobox image keeps getting switched (typically without even an edit summary) between File:10_8_composite.jpeg and File:Mac_OS_X_Mountain_Lion.png. Can we have some actual discussion and decide once and for all which to use? --Cybercobra (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

OS X 10.8 requires OS X 10.6.8 or later?

What? So this version of the OS runs under a previous version of the OS, rather than being a standalone OS? I'm confused.... — Smjg (talk) 20:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

No, but if you want to upgrade a system already running an earlier version of OS X to Mountain Lion, you need to buy it from the Mac App Store, which requires 10.6.6 or later, and Mountain Lion might not be installable from 10.6.6 or 10.6.7, requiring 10.6.8 or later. The OS X technical specifications page is currently giving the specs for Mountain Lion, and they include "OS X v10.6.8 or later". Guy Harris (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I've now clarified the wording and added a reference to back this up. drewmunn (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Does this mean they aren't distributing it on CD, DVD or anything like that, or that doing it that way basically means reformatting the hard disk and installing everything again from scratch? (Moreover, how does one reinstall the OS when it's stopped working without a disc of it?) — Smjg (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Much like Lion, it will be distributed via the Mac App Store, which requires 10.6.7 at least (off hand), but 10.6.8 to download Mountain Lion. Once it is downloaded, you have a 'virtual disk' which can then be burnt to a physical disk if you wish, stored on a flash drive, etc. You can then use this to re-install onto a OS-less computer, or one that does not currently have 10.6.8 on but does meet hardware requirements. During the installation, the system also creates a small partition on your HDD that works as a recovery system in case your main partition fails to boot, and Macs released after Lion (so any Mac less than a year old) can install their operating system via the internet by holding down a certain key combination on startup. Apple also released a flash drive with the installation files for Lion already installed for you to use rather than a disk, so users with slow internet could upgrade. However, it's unlikely this will happen again. To get around slow internet speeds, Apple also provided free internet at their stores (at least some of the UK ones) for users to upgrade to Lion. This is likely to repeat this year for Mountain Lion. drewmunn (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Confirming that the Mountain Lion Golden Master/release version (build 12A269) (indirectly) supports clean-installs to a “blank” HD partition with adequate free space. The installer resizes the partition to make room for the Recovery Partition, unless one is already present. The installer also looks for a previous install of OS X (the install log describes the process as “reaping”), presumably to optimize the install process—therefore it would expect to see resources in place from any version of (Mac)OS X from 10.6.8 through 10.7.4 (the last Lion update). Consider that Apple itself would presumably only provide users live tech support (under the one-year factory warranty or AppleCare or One-on-one) for the standard purchase-install or install-on-another-Mac process, which would require the user have Snow Leopard (10.6.8) or later already in place on at least one of their Mountain Lion-capable platforms. This writer’s household boasts the oldest Macs that qualify: the Mini (late 2009) shipped with 10.6.2 — the MacBook (Aluminum, Late 2008) shipped with 10.5.5 and was upgraded to 10.6 shortly after release (they have identical NVIDIA graphics). Reports on system & configuration compatibility are likely to emerge from the “wild”, very soon.
---Schweiwikist (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

To answer Smjg's question: Yes, your computer needs to be running at least Snow Leopard v10.6.8 in order to upgrade to Mountain Lion (OS X v10.8). According to Apple, if your computer is stuck at Leopard (Mac OS X v10.5) or before, your machine is incompatible to be running Mountain Lion. However if your computer is running Snow Leopard (Mac OS X v10.6), manually upgrade to the latest version of Snow Leopard by clicking the Apple symbol in the upper left-hand corner and press "Software Update…". Once it has upgraded to v10.6.8, and your computer satisfies the other minimum hardware requirements, go to the Mac App Store and download Mountain Lion. On a final note, if your computer is already running Lion (OS X v10.7), your computer is ready to upgrade to Mountain Lion, as the minimum system requirements are the same for both Lion and Mountain Lion. Hope this answers your question. —stay (sic)! 01:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

the minimum system requirements for Lion aren't the same as that of Mountain Lion, as some older models (with Intel Cores, or Core Duos I believe) aren't able to run Mountain Lion. You can see these listed by computer/ release time on the Apple site. Other than that, you're entirely correct. Shame that can't be succinctly put across in less than a sentence on the actual page (fancy having a go?) drewmunn (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Name

This article claims that Apple renamed Mac OS X to OS X because Apple told them the preferred full name of Mountain Lion is "OS X Mountain Lion." I personally prefer "marketed as OS X Mountain Lion" (keep the sentence as is), but I guess I'd better post this issue here. --tOMG 17:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The UNIX 03 registration name is the same as before, cf. The Open Brand - Register of Certified Products, and Apple Inc. - UNIX 03. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haberg (talk • contribs) 10:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the press release has links to download images of "Mac OS X Lion" and "OS X Mountain Lion". Guy Harris (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there's enough information yet to change this, but I think there will be. This needs to be taken with a grain of salt, but given confirmation going forward: The Verge --Steven Fisher (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Adam C. Engst of Tidbits is reporting the same thing in a comment, though Tidbits doesn't have a story up yet on the subject. --Steven Fisher (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

It's OS X, not Mac OS X.^{About This Mac} 86.136.45.200 (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I think it's OS X. But providing a screenshot from software under NDA as evidence is worth precisely nothing. It's very likely that every screen on Mountain Lion will change before the release goes public. --Steven Fisher (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The name as it officially appears on Apple.comis OSX Lion, along with the new slogan "OSX. It's what makes a Mac a Mac." . Apple has been using OSX Mountain Lion without the Mac in publicity material since last year's WWDC (summer). There are pictures of WWDC 2011 on Engadget.Charles Dayton (Talk) 21:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

In any case, the move has been done. Guy Harris (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moot; page moved out-of-process, but there don't seem to have been any full-on objections. Cybercobra (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Mac OS X Mountain Lion → OS X Mountain Lion – Semi-procedural filing. Per sources given above, the "Mac" has been dropped by Apple, but this obviously would mess with cross-article consistency, even more than the dropping of the version number for Mac OS X Panther et seq. did. Some googling suggests nontrivial uptake of the sans-Mac name, but more analysis is warranted. Opinions on both the article title and usage in the article lede/body would be appreciated. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The main argument for this change is the 'About This Mac' window in 10.8, which drops the 'Mac' from the OS name. If you go onto your iOS device and look in General > About, then it just says 'Version 5.0.1'. It remains to be seen, but as that window is entitiled 'About This Mac', we can assume it will be running a Mac OS of some kind, so the operating system identifier is all that is needed. The release materials on their site generally only reference it as 'OS X Mountain Lion', but that is the same as Lion's promotional material. --Sonicdrewdriver (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Apple's a bit inconsistent about Lion's name; they seem more consistent about Mountain Lion (see my comments in Talk:Mac OS X Lion#"Mac OS X" vs. "OS X"). Guy Harris (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Apple has trademarked "OS X"¹ and confirmed the rename to the Verge.² As of v10.8, "Mac OS X" is now officially "OS X", similar to when "iPhone OS" was renamed "iOS".

Source: 1, 2

86.136.45.200 (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we're going to end up moving this. But I also think it's too early to bother; at this point, the evidence is not overwhelming. If this is a permanent change, it will be. --Steven Fisher (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the 'wait and see' philosophy for the moment. But it seems rather obvious they may be thinking: "iPhone OS" > "iOS", then "Mac OS X" > "OS X", then within the next release or two "iOS"+"OS X" > either "Apple OS 11" or perhaps just simply back to square one with "Apple OS" (i.e. drop the "i" and the "X" respectively, adding "Apple" for branding purposes; as clearly just "OS" would be rather too generic ;-). And around we go again, until they need to create a new OS for gestures or something in a few years time ("Air OS" anyone, lol). --Jimthing (talk) 01:45, 20 February 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

"New and changed features" section - why prose rather than lists?

The "New and changed features" section looks very unorganized and it ins't consistent with the same sections in other OS X articles. Can someone fix it? 83.84.106.114 (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Or, to put it another way, why is is better to have those sections in the form of prose rather than lists and, if it truly is better, why not do that with all the OS X articles? WP:PROSE says

Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain.

but it also says

It can be appropriate to use a list style when the items in a list are "children" of the paragraphs that precede them. Such "children" logically qualify for indentation beneath their parent description. In this case, indenting the paragraphs in list form may make them easier to read, especially if the paragraphs are very short.

in the "Children" sub-section of the "Appropriate use of lists" section. In the article before User:Zach Vega's changes, the "paragraph" in question was just a simple heading, but, even given that, of the two examples they given in that sub-section, I, at least, find the "List" example more readable than the "Prose" example, as it puts each building into its own paragraph in the bulleted list, making the separation between the items about the buildings clearer. Guy Harris (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Jesse V. over at the peer review on the article suggested that the article be written in prose. Considering that the article in prose is a clusterfuck, I'm going to divide the major updates in Mountain Lion into individual sections and see how that works. Zach Vega (talk to me) 20:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

That seems a bit better in the current version. Perhaps something along those lines should be done with the other OS X articles. Guy Harris (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you think that it's ready to submit to the GA approval process? Zach Vega (talk to me) 00:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I added alt text and submitted it. Zach Vega (talk to me) 00:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Put new features of Mountain Lion into a separate article??

Any thoughts about separating the big part of this article into a new article called New features of Mountain Lion?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article is not long enough to cause readability issues, and therefore would not merit a split. Zach Vega (talk to me) 01:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I think a new article would be unnecessary, as there's not enough information to warrant one. Also, the new article would become a breeding ground for non-prose listings, or eventually mirror the marketing campaign for Mountain Lion. Wikipedia doesn't need to list every single change in detail, and I think that a separate article would encourage that. drewmunn (talk) 07:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, that was done for:

• Windows XP, with a Features new to Windows XP page;

• Windows Vista, with both Features new to Windows Vista and List of features removed in Windows Vista pages;

• Windows 7, with both Features new to Windows 7 and List of features removed in Windows 7 pages.

However, they may have had bigger piles of new stuff than various OS X releases, so it might have been more justified in their cases. Guy Harris (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Gatekeeper needs more coverage

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5290

Gatekeeper was introduced in 10.8 and billed as a "malware protection" feature, but in reality it prevents most programs from being installed unless they're on the App store. This is a drastic change and needs much more coverage. 184.166.12.197 (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

By default, it means that you have to use control-click to open up packages/drag-install apps not from "identified developers" ("identified develoeprs" are developers who have gotten certificates from Apple and signed their packages using those certificates); it doesn't prevent running stuff from "identified developers" who don't sell their stuff through the App Store. The user can set it to require control-click to install stuff not from the App Store, but that's not the default. Guy Harris (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:OS X Mountain Lion/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jasper Deng (talk · contribs) 02:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Disclaimer: it should be noted that I have a personal bias against Apple, but I will try my best to make this review objective. If you feel that my review was affected by my bias, then please feel free to request another review.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Some grammar fixes are needed; "Notification Center is added to the operating system" is one of those places that need a fix. In addition, be very careful when saying that "Game Center" was the only negative of the OS (watch out when you use the word "only"). Fundamentally, many statements about having a new feature need to make it more clear that we're comparing Mountain Lion with Lion. While it may not be a big issue, mentioning Facebook integration in a lead section of that size is rather WP:UNDUE to me. And finally, when you say Mountain Lion gained iOS features in the lead, which I know it did, please make a little bit more mention of how so in the body of the article.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   On a stylistic note, consider reducing the amount of quoting in the Reception section; there are many reasons to like and dislike an OS.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Oops, File:Mac OS X Messages screenshot.png had no non-free rationale for this particular article and had to be removed. Also, how relevant is the Moscone West image relevant to the history section? It doesn't seem to show much more than what can be described in text.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I would say it's about 80-85% of the way there. My main concerns are about the quality of the prose, but I know this is difficult and this doesn't need too much work to pass.

10.8.2 build numbers

10.8.2 was released to the app store as build 12C54. The supplemental update for 10.8.2 changes this to 12C60. The release history shows 12C60 as the released build. The release date is also the date of the supplemental update while 10.8.2 was released days earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.83.37 (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:OS X Mountain Lion/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 07:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 07:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: For Zach Vega or any other editor that is able to address this -- I've gone ahead and added some {{fact}} tags in places where the info in the article needs cites for confirmation of asserted material. These will obviously have to be addressed for the article to meet GA criteria. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Zach Vega, any updates on this? — Cirt (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Been quite some time since I added the {{fact}} tags and there are other problems with the article since added including a {{dubious}} tag, and unfortunately since these are unaddressed quick fail criteria, the article is not GA at this time. Feel free to renominate at a later point in time after these issues have been addressed. Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

"final" major release

What does "final" major release mean? Is this meant to mean "most recent"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.171.191.60 (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It's probably meant to mean "there won't ever be another OS X release after Mountain Lion", which is a claim for which there's no real evidence (there might be ex recto pronouncements from pundits or "logical" inferences from carefully-chosen premises, but that's another matter), so I reverted it. As it's not an official release, it's not the "most recent" version yet, it's the "next" one to come out, so even if that's not what he meant by "final", "next" is better. Guy Harris (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

And, in fact, there's now damn good evidence against that claim, so Mountain Lion sure as hell isn't the final major release of OS X in the sense of "there won't ever be another major release of OS X after Mountain Lion". Mavericks probably won't be the final major release of OS X in that sense, either (no, going from 10.9 to 10.10 won't make the entire universe collapse into a black hole). Guy Harris (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

OS X Mountain Lion and prior versions are unsupported, and the page should show it.

I'm in a dispute with user Mdphddr over this. On 28 November user Mdphddr removed a contribution I made. I believe the reasons are inadequate. On October 22, Apple released OS X 10.9 (a.k.a. Mavericks) supplanting version 10.8 (a.k.a. Mountain Lion). In the past, when Apple has released a new version, they have continued to provide security updates for at least the immediate previous version and provide the updates at the same time as the release of the new version. It needs to be so because when they release the new version they disclose vulnerabilities in the old one that are fixed in the new one. But Apple did not, and has not since release a security update for Mountain Lion to address the vulnerabilities disclosed in it on October 22. I am a contributor to ZDNet and did a good deal of research on this, including consulting with Apple. I wrote a one-paragraph contribution to the OS X Mountain Lion page describing the issue and citing my own article. Shortly thereafter, Mdphddr removed it, saying "Instead of complaining about security updates, we should either wait for new ones to be released or wait until Apple declares ML unsupported." The problem with this position is not only is it irrelevant to the truth and usefulness of my contribution, but Apple never declares a version of OS X unsupported. They just stop supporting it. I specifically asked Apple when or if they would release updates for OS X Mountain Lion and they specifically said they had no comment. There was another problem with the OS X Mountain Lion page which I declined to address: It still listed the product as "Supported." Since then, an unidentified user changed the status to "Security updates and printer drivers." This is untrue, as Apple hasn't and appears not to be providing security updates. The status should be "Unsupported" and the same change should be made to OS X Lion and OS X Snow Leopard, both of which are inaccurately listed as "Security updates and printer drivers." --Larry Seltzer, Editorial Director - BYTE 14:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lseltzer (talk • contribs)

Although I appreciate your work at ZDNet, I need to emphasise that your contribution is based on YOUR original research, not an official nor an independent expert source. The main argument in your article was just like "They published the list of security improvements they implemented in Mavericks, they did not update Mountain Lion since Mavericks release, so they will publish no updates anymore." Wait a moment - OS X Mavericks was released just a bit more than a month ago. In the past, Apple released even Snow Leopard security updates when Mountain Lion got its 5th revision (10.8.5), so your argument to demonstrate that Apple stopped supporting ML is not proven by Apple's OS X release history. Also, Apple did not always release updates for an older OS X version straight after a new one was published. Maybe they are preparing a more extensive update for ML and it will take some time until 10.8.6 (there are rumours about this next ML release) will get out. We cannot prove this. But it is also not proven that there will be no Mountain Lion (security) updates anymore.

I think it is quite too early to give ML the status "Unsupported". If Apple does not answer your request or tell you they do not want to comment on it, this is not consequently a proof that they will never update ML at all. We should wait some months, e. g. until OS X 10.9.3 is out and no updates for ML were released until this day, then it is more adequate to assign the status "unsupported" to OS X 10.8.--Mdphddr (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you miss the point. When you say "In the past, Apple released even Snow Leopard security updates when Mountain Lion got its 5th revision (10.8.5), so your argument to demonstrate that Apple stopped supporting ML is not proven by Apple's OS X release history" you should note that they released those updates at the same time for 10.6, 10.7 and 10.8. You also assert that "Apple did not always release updates for an older OS X version straight after a new one was published". Can you cite a single example of this, of Apple belatedly patching an earlier version of an operating system? I looked back several years and they haven't done it. I also maintain that Apple has never formally announced that a version of OS X was unsupported; they just stop supporting it. So your preference for waiting for them to make an announcement would leave all OS X Wikipedia pages stating "Supported". I repeat, Apple not only refused to say when they will update Mountain Lion, they refused to say if they would update Mountain Lion. They also refused to say what their policy is for such updates. At the very least I think my research is useful and valuable information in that show that there are dozens of unpatched vulnerabilities in Mountain Lion and earlier versions of OS X, and just deleting my entire entry is unjustifiable. Larry Seltzer, Contributing Editor - ZDNet 01:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lseltzer (talk • contribs)

Apple is still selling copies of ML, Lion and even Snow Leopard: http://store.apple.com/us/help/downloadable_software#MacOSX and http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC573/mac-os-x-106-snow-leopard . While I agree that they are probably unsupported, they could just be on a slower schedule, receiving updates 4 times a year. And that's not just a random number: http://support.apple.com/kb/ht1222 (Look for "Security Update 2013-00X") --87.143.89.195 (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It's now over 2 months since Mavericks was released and still there are no security updates for Mountain Lion (other than updates for Safari running on it). Is it still unclear to you that Apple won't be issuing any more security updates for Mountain Lion? Your example of how Apple continued to update Snow Leopard after Lion and Mountain Lion were released is not relevant; Apple issued those updates at the same time they fixed the same vulnerabilities in Mountain Lion. That's what's new here: It makes no sense to issue such updates late, Apple has never issued patches for the same vulnerabilities on different schedules, so it's reasonable to conclude that they won't be issuing them. And is there a Wikipedia rule against citing one's own original research published elsewhere? Would it be better for me to create a fake account and cite it from there? Who says I'm not an independent expert source myself? Larry Seltzer, Contributing Editor - ZDNet 20:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lseltzer (talk • contribs)

How can you possibly suggest that it's clear "that Apple won't be issuing any more security updates for Mountain Lion"? Security updates are dependent on flaws in security, and while it's true that Apple did not release an update in this case, you just can't extrapolate that Apple will not be releasing updates going forward, because you are a person who does not work at Apple and cannot predict the future. Apple's support for an OS is also multifaceted, covering more than whether or not Apple is updating the OS itself. It also includes whether or not Apple provides customer support for the OS (which they do) and whether or not Apple continues to release software for the OS (which is a mixed bag - Apple still maintains some software, like Safari and Xcode, for 10.8, but the latest versions of iLife and iWork require 10.9). AriX (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Amazing logic. If, 5 years from now, Apple has neither issued updates for Mountain Lion nor formally announced it as unsupported, your reasoning would be just as valid. Perhaps we should remove the word "Unsupported" from the Tiger page, since Apple never announced it was unsupported, just as they never make that announcement for anything. I'm serious, they never announce anything unsupported, they just stop supporting it. Larry Seltzer, Contributing Editor - ZDNet 04:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lseltzer (talk • contribs)

Apple still have a section for OS X Mountain Lion on their support website, the latest article within which (that I can find, anyway) was updated on November 11. I'm not going to argue whether or not they'll release any further security updates (as that is all frankly OR), but some level of support is still in place.  drewmunn  talk  08:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree with Larry Seltzer, Apple has published a list of vulnerabilities present in version of OS X previous to OS X 10.9 at the end of October last year. Since then, no security fix has been provided to those previous OS X release, which is more than 3 months ago. Having published security flaws not patched for more than 3 months is like having no support. Apple is clearly not providing anymore security fixes to its previous OS releases. And I totally agree that AriX's logic is amasing! :-D More importantly, even Apple is hinting as having stopped the support of previous release, check their Security Advisory page for OS X 10.9 update and for which release this update is applicable (hint: "Mac OS X v10.6.8 and later"), now check how this was mentioned for past updated security release (example: "Mac OS X v10.6.8, OS X Lion v10.7.5, OS X Mountain Lion v10.8 and v10.8.4"), but then in the past you had a specific update for each "supported" release. Now you only have one upgrade path and it is OS X 10.9. For me this is proof enough, you won't get better than that. Huygens 25 (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Apple today released updates for OS X 10.7, 10.8, and 10.9, so you two are officially wrong and we can put an end to this nonsense. AriX (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on OS X Mountain Lion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.apple.com/osx/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070114203948/http://kamidake.other-space.com/ to http://www.apple.com/macosx/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120902210711/http://www.apple.com:80/apple-events/june-2012/ to http://www.apple.com/apple-events/june-2012/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

The first and third changes were OK, but using {{wayback}} works better. The second change was completely bogus; I fixed it. Guy Harris (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Release History

The current Release History section lists build 12F2560 as Darwin 12.5, which is incorrect; 12F2560 is Darwin 12.6. Earlier builds may also have incorrect version Darwin version attributed to a given build. I’m not sure that this counts as original research since the source of information is so obvious (uname -r). If needed, what kind of proof should I provide? A screen shot? Qovqa (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Qovqa: Thanks for bringing this up. I can verify that, at a minimum, builds 12F45 with Security Update 2015-001, 12F2501, 12F2518, 12F2542, and 12F2560 all contain Darwin 12.6.

In my opinion, this provision of WP:PRIMARY applies (emphasis is original):

A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.

Granted, knowing how to run uname or where to look in the System Information application is specialized knowledge, but it's purely procedural; anyone can go through the motions and read the version number off their screen. So I've gone ahead and updated the table. larryv (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)