Talk:OS X Yosemite

Objection to deletion

It's obviously going to happen. Why try deleting it over and over? No speculative information, just any facts that we know Justinhu12 (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because it is obviously going to happen. All other Mac OSX versions have there own page so why shouldn't this. Not a crystal ball because there is no speculative information. You might as well delete iOS 8 article as well, if your at this. Justinhu12 (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the speedy tag as it no longer applies; User:Mike_V removed the corresponding section on OS_X which elaborated on OS X. Tutelary (talk) 02:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct, iOS 8 should be deleted.  drewmunn  talk  06:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@Sonicdrewdriver: Cool! And yes, that should also be deleted.  HPD   ^talk  16:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry

Made a mistake with moving. SAJ (T) 17:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Version Number

Isn't OSX 10.1 and OSX 10.10 the same thing? I think we might have some confusion with people who search OSX 10.1 or Mac OS X v10.1 Giggett (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

No, they aren't the same thing. For one thing, Mac OS X v10.1 only runs on PowerPC-based Macs, and OS X v10.10 only runs on x86-64-based Macs. And, yes, a "minor" version number of 10 can confuse people; there appeared, for example, to be some folks who thought Apple would have to go to "OS XI" after 10.9, but, of course, Apple didn't have to, and didn't, do any such thing.

We can add some hatnotes to the 10.1 and 10.10 articles, to redirect confused people to the article they really wanted. Guy Harris (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Similarly, 10.1 is Puma and 10.8 is Mountain Lion. In the world of zoology, puma and mountain lion are synonyms, but in the world of OS X technology, they are not. Georgia guy (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Well I don't know about you guys but if you know simple decimals then you would see that 10.1 and 10.10 are the same number as well as 10.100 and 10.1000; they are all 10.1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.214.232.90 (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)<!— Template:Unsigned IP -->

We guys recognize that version numbers aren't simple decimals, they're ordered pairs or ordered triples that happen to use the syntax X.Y and X.Y.Z rather than (X, Y) and (X, Y, Z). Guy Harris (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

See this article if you are confusing Software Version Numbering vs. what some think are decimal numbers: Software_versioning. Quite simply, each set of numbers is separated by a dot, not a decimal point indicating a percentage of a whole number. This tradition of using a dot separator has long teeth in computing and isn’t about to change anytime soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noivad (talk • contribs) 13:44, 3 September 2014‎ (UTC)

Software versioning . Georgij Michaliutin (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Recentism tag

Please do not remove this tag. It's shown that keeping this tag reminds editors that it is to be kept in historical and long term signifiance with that regard. I can already see courses of recentism "will be released to consumers..." among other things. Tutelary (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

pictures of the 10.10 beta1 (cc-license for here)

APPLE MACOSX 10.10 > BETA1 PICTURE REVIEW: 23 images http://imgur.com/a/EIywt#0 made with MacBookPro91. --85.8.79.48 (talk) 13:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice, but I'm taking a huge risk on downloading the beta. Apple has sent me a link of the Yosemite beta, but I'm worried something's going to happen to my Mac? should i do it? Dlpham (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Mac OS 10.10 Beta

I'm not sure what to do... Currently I have Mac OS X 10.9 Mavericks... and Apple sent me the beta to Yosemite... but I'm scared that somethings going to happen to my Macbook. My files could be deleted, or a huge crash or something. Should I go for it? Or should I wait until Yosemite comes out in 2 months? Dlpham (talk) 03:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Remember WP:FORUM. Betas and developer previews always have a risk of killing your files; running them is a risk you have to take, unless you use a partition or secondary machine. If you're not comfortable with the risks, stick with Mavericks. I upgraded to Yosemite last night and have not had any significant problems thus far. gsk 05:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violation

This article contains direct copies or closely paraphrased information from non-free copyrighted sites including: http://thatopinion.com/yosemite/ http://www.macrumors.com/ http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/why-apple-21398/index4.html

Cult of Green (talk) 04:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Cult of Green: Where, exactly? Why didn't you mark it or fix it? That's a *really* really tall claim. Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 19:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not a really really tall claim at all. ~I diodn';t fix it because it was 1 of a dozen articles I was addressing at the time, most which have since been deleted for copy vio. At the time the template was added an editor had been posting large sections of copyrighted material into approx 12 existing and new articles including this one. Since then this article has undergone a number of edits so I have removed the template but I think the System Requirements section needs a look. Cult of Green (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Cult of Green: Oh, bummer. I missed that time period there. I should have said that it's a "serious" claim, not meaning that it's outlandish or whatever. Sadly no. So. I was just trying to follow up. Ok well thanks for following up on the thankless work of fixing the lame problem of copyright violation. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 04:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Handoff and Bluetooth LE

"Sufficient", in the item about Handoff and Bluetooth LE, was presumably there to say that Bluetooth LE is necessary, but not sufficient, to enable Handoff. I.e., that:

1. if your machine doesn't have Bluetooth LE, it definitely won't support Handoff;
2. if your machine does have Bluetooth LE, it still might not support Handoff.

Now, does anybody have any citations for that? I didn't find anything on a quick search of Apple's Web sites. Searching for 'handoff "bluetooth le" "yosemite"' found pages that say that adding a Bluetooth LE adapter to a Mac without it doesn't enable Handoff and pages that say that it did enable Handoff on their Mac. So:

• Is there a reference indicating whether Handoff requires Bluetooth LE?
• Is there a reference indicating whether there are any Macs that have Bluetooth LE built-in and that don't support Handoff?
• Is there any clear indication of whether adding a Bluetooth LE adapter to a Mac that doesn't have Bluetooth LE built in will enable Handoff?

Guy Harris (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

UK release

This OS is not available in the UK App Store. I assume it's US-only. Maybe this is relevant to the article but I don't know of any sources or how to add this information. 87.243.219.115 (talk) 18:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

During a period of time when it's only available from the US App Store, if there is such a period of time, it's "US-only" by definition. That's unlikely to be a very long period of time. Guy Harris (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

And, for what it's worth, it's not showing up on two machines, both in the US, on which I checked, so maybe it's not on the App Store yet. Guy Harris (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Privacy issues

This section should be removed. This is a non-controversy. Obviously when searching the web, your query has to be sent to Apple. You don't see a privacy issues section from Windows 8 or Chrome OS, or ANY browser, all of which have this functionality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.51.65.179 (talk) 05:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Is Apple operating a search engine? If it does then that's OK. If it doesn't then there's no need for the OS to send search queries to Apple, that would be close to a key logger. 85.230.13.246 (talk) 16:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Design inspired from the GNOME/GTK project

The combined titlebar and toolbar widgets in Yosemite have prior art in the Free Software ecosystem, particularly in GTK+ and GNOME, since they released the "HeaderBar" widget and made massive use of it since GTK 3.10; GNOME 3.10 was released in September 2013, and development releases of that feature go back as far as March 2013. See

• https://help.gnome.org/misc/release-notes/3.10/index.html.en
• http://www.gnome.org/news/2013/09/gnome-3-10-released/
• https://git.gnome.org/browse/gtk+/commit/?id=3f9455301e7637b2bc1cca33897c38daf1a71e5b — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.194.254 (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

For us to connect any of that to Apple would be WP:OR, and disallowed. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 14:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Next version edit war

There are some IP addresses adding the same "next version" over and over, even though WWDC was not announced and we have no information (starting from 647845277 and up to 647987538). Could we temporarily protect the page? #!/bin/DokReggar -talk 07:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. (I made the request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.) Guy Harris (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

This is starting again :-(. there does not seem to be a pattern in source IP addresses, yet it is consistently the same modification. Should I request a new protection? #!/bin/DokReggar -talk 06:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

If it happens again after my revert, yes. Guy Harris (talk) 06:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I made a request again, this is starting to get on my nerves. Damn kids. #!/bin/DokReggar -talk 11:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

It's part of this long-standing trolling: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&curid=1952670&diff=659854836&oldid=659853851 Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

And I suppose the only way we have to deal with this is request a semi-protection, right? Thanks for the info anyway! #!/bin/DokReggar -talk 11:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Additional forked build

I added a forked build entry when the new Air's came out this year. There is now (or was) a forked 10.10.3 build for the new 15" Retina's; build number 14D2134. This was unified in 10.10.4 I would appreciate for completeness that this be added to the version history.

Many thanks.

FYI forked builds are generated by Apple when new hardware is released, new drivers or whatever Apples excuse. IT departments around the world then discover that old images they use on prior builds will not go onto the new hardware. They then have to either create a new base image or await the unification of the build (normally the next point update). This information is extremely valuable and is nowhere to be found on Apple's site nor even when speaking to their staff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notverynick (talk • contribs) 22:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Do not remove links to "MacBook (2015-2019)" from the "System requirements" section

There were two separate flavors of notebooks called just MacBook rather than MacBook Air or MacBook Pro.

There does not exist a Wikipedia page that covers both of them. MacBook is a page about all notebooks with "MacBook" in the name, including the MacBook Air and the MacBook Pro. MacBook (2006-2012) is about the first flavor; it does not contain any information about the second flavor, which was available between 2015 and 2019. MacBook (2015-2019) is about the second flavor; it does not contain any information about the first flavor.

Yosemite ran on machines from both flavors. It is, therefore, an error for OS X Yosemite § System requirements to contain only a link to MacBook (2006-2012) or to contain only a link to MacBook (2015-2019). Links to both pages must' be included.

Currently, the section says

• MacBook (Aluminum Late 2008 through Mid 2009)
• MacBook (Early 2015)

An alternative that makes it clearer that the two "MacBook" links are not the same would be

• First- and second-generation MacBook (Aluminum Late 2008 through Mid 2009)
• Third-generation MacBook (Early 2015)

and another is just

• MacBook (2006-2012) (Aluminum Late 2008 through Mid 2009)
• MacBook (2015–2019) (Early 2015)

However

• MacBook (Aluminum Late 2008 and Early 2009 or newer)

is NOT valid, as the Early 2015 MacBook was shipped with OS X Yosemite (and thus belongs in the "System requirements" section), is "newer" than Early 2009, and is NOT described in MacBook (2006-2012) - it is described in MacBook (2015–2019).

So don't do that.

Yes, this is confusing. Sometimes life is confusing and, thanks to 1) Apple and 2) the current Wikipedia pages for the notebook computer lines from Apple that had the name "MacBook" without "Air" or "Pro", this is one of those times. Perhaps a case could be made that MacBook (2006-2012) and MacBook (2015–2019) should be merged into a single page, but the most obvious name, "MacBook", collides with the fact that there's currently a MacBook page that discusses all of the notebook computers with "MacBook" in their names. Perhaps that page should be renamed, and a "MacBook" page should cover both flavors of MacBook. If somebody wants to propose any such operation, go ahead. Guy Harris (talk) 07:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

And, yes, this means you can't just duplicate Apple's wording on their pages about these releases. So it goes - if Apple had links to other pages in that text, and they had separate pages to link to for the two lines of MacBook, they'd have to write it differently, too. Fortunately for them, they didn't have that; unfortunately for us, we currently do. (And note that, when Apple says "newer", that can eventually become false, if they release a new model incapable of running the OS in question - "newer" needs an endpoint. This means that all the "System requirements" sections should avoid using "newer" except if all newer models, including models, if any, that didn't exist at the time Apple last modified that page, can run the OS version in question.) Guy Harris (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Or, to put it another way - if Apple say "and later", we should say, instead of "and later", "through XXX", where XXX is the most recent "later" model as of when that page was last modified. Apple did not intend it to mean "every machine with release under that name from now until the end of time", as they cannot make any such guarantees - they're not going to bother making sure that a new machine will run OS versions older than the one that they will be installing on the machines that are shipped. Guy Harris (talk) 08:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)