Talk:OS X Mavericks

Release in "Fall"?
Just wondering if we can narrow it down to a specific quarter like Q3 rather than saying Fall. Since Fall is different in the Southern Hemisphere. Althepal (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * To clarify my previous comment. It looks like somebody took action and changed one reference to Fall to Q3. I was hoping for some discussion first as Fall might refer to late Q3 or early Q4 perhaps. I also would hope for consistency (whether it's using only Q3 to describe release date or whether it's simply to correct all capitalizations of the word "Fall" to be lowercase (as it's only supposed to be uppercase as part of a proper noun). Althepal (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies, that would have been me. I would support changing it to 'Q3 or Q4', as opposed to having it as 'fall,' mainly for two reasons: 1) 'The fall' is a North American term, it does not apply to many other English-speaking nations in the Northern hemisphere (it's autumn in the UK and Ireland), and 2) Your point about the Southern Hemisphere. Conay (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would support saying "Q3 to Q4 2013" or even "late 2013" and additionally note the fact that Apple (see press release) used the term "fall". Althepal (talk) 03:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For future reference, I'll note that the stated change of "Q3 — Q4" was made here and in OS X. This is simply correctly established business nomenclature for the speculative timeframe of a future event, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the rotation of the Earth, the weather anywhere thereupon, or anything other than Apple's own position in time itself.  We can also take inspiration from Wikipedia's notes on synthesis of controversies, where one RS says one thing and another RS says another thing, and a Wikipedian can simply give a range or state "or" or "and" or something like that.  Thanks! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 22:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * After editing the last few years of Apple pages on these "Fall" release announcements, the previous consensus was always to use "Fall (Northern Hemisphere) or Spring (Southern Hemisphere)", for very clear reasons: (1) "Fall" for half the world (Southern Hemisphere) is wrong, as it's actually Spring, and Apple's S-Hem sites advertise the date on them as "Spring", and (2) we do not use "Q3–Q4" or similar, as Northern Hem's "Fall" is not the WHOLE of these two quarters so is misleading, but rather just the Autumn months of Sep/Oct/Nov., whereas Q3 is Jul/Aug/Sep and Q4 is Oct/Nov/Dec, so using that is much too ambiguous being anywhere during Jul/Aug/Sep/Oct/Nov/Dec (i.e. HALF the year!) – hence seasons being entirely different to quarters. So there is clear reasoning already behind such decisions. Jimthing (talk) 10:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Q3–Q4 is not accurate, as stated in reasoning above (Fall is 3 months of the year, Q3–Q4 is 6 months of the year). Jimthing (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

10.9 is inaccurate!
If you watch the entire keynote and closely examine every press release and every page on Apple.com...you will see NO mention of 10.9. People are assuming it is 10.9. This is not fact.

They are rebooting the naming. They may change the number system as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.195.30.102 (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * https://developer.apple.com says:


 * OS X Mavericks
 * Download the Developer Preview of OS X 10.9.


 * HTH. Guy Harris (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

OS X Syrah
Any thoughts about when an article for OS X Syrah can be created?? See http://9to5mac.com/2013/10/03/apple-finishing-up-mavericks-as-development-shifts-to-os-x-10-10-ios-8/ for information. Georgia guy (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not until it officially exists! All there are now are whispers of rumours of talk. We are not a news site, and there's nothing encyclopaedic at this time. drewmunn talk 13:26, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and when the article does get made, it won't be called "Syrah". It'll be named whatever the next version of OS X (if it's even OS X) will be called, not a possible internal codename. drewmunn talk 13:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes - once the originally-internal code names became marketing names, they needed new internal code names to use before the marketing name was picked, so they went with wines.
 * (I don't expect them to drop the "OS X" part, or to change the major version number from 10; there's no law or convention requiring version numbers to have one-digit components, so it's not as if going from 10.9 to 10.0 is impossible. As for the marketing name - Big Sur?)
 * We already had OS X 10.0 Cheetah in 2001. They aren't going to go backwards. If they stick with the X, it would probably be OS X 11.0. Technically 10.9 is version 19 of OS X. DavidRavenMoon (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oops, I meant to say "it's not as if going from 10.9 to 10.10 is impossible", because, in fact, it's not impossible. And, no, 10.9 isn't version 19, given that it's the 10th version of OS X - 10.0, 10.1, ... 10.9. Guy Harris (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * However, as noted, there's not much to say about the OS until Apple first announces it, which will probably be happen at WWDC 2014. Guy Harris (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I too think it's unlikely they'd change it from OS X after they spent so much time and effort streamlining that marketing image, but the point is we don't currently know. Release will either be at WWDC, or it may be prior to that, as with Mountain Lion, and then released at WWDC. As hinted above, I'm not personally convinced the Codename is Syrah, because this is the sort of thing propagated exceedingly quickly if one person suggests it with even a hint of a "source". Anyway, no point debating this, we wait until official recognition of existence as per all versions. drewmunn talk 07:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Syrah ? huhh! The news itself is rumor and currently there is no announcement by the company regarding this. So, if any of the above users creates the article, I'll definitely delete it or rollback the article. Himanis Das talk  10:06, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Himanis, you don't have the final say so, and you can't delete a page yourself. If it were created, due diligence would have to prevail. drewmunn talk 15:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for late, as I was extremely busy in preparing a project. Yes! OS X Syrah and Windows 9 articles will only be created if there will be an encyclopaedic reports excluding rumor otherwise tag for AFD. Their codename are likely to be changed in future like Longhorn became Windows Vista.
 * For Syrah, there are sites revealing that Apple is now working some on it. For Windows 9, there's nothing but speculation. Georgia guy (talk) 13:05, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There were sites revealing Apple was working on a NetBook. They weren't. We're not a rumour or speculation site. drewmunn talk 18:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

"decreasing prices" and "first free upgrade"
There's one exception in the list: OS X's very first major upgrade (10.0 to 10.1) was also free.--Kernpanik (talk) 08:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Bugs and crashes
Should we start a list of known issues with other software and hardware and make note when they are fixed.

A few issues include: USB monitors crash, mail, java based software (minecraft), wake from sleep and adobe producst. These can be posted when there are more articles documenting the bugs.--199.255.204.2 (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That is not what we're for. We're an encyclopaedia, not a crash log. drewmunn talk 16:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right that this article wouldn't be the appropriate place for logging various of the bugs. But, bugs are worth mentioning if they are brought into the public eye.  Such a topic would be reported by reputable tech media. --Narcolepticpathos (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * They'd still have to be particularly noteworthy; many tech sites run "how to fix..." articles for fairly minor bugs when they are discovered, but that doesn't make them notable. Widespread reliable reporting on the impact of a specific bug is closer to what would be considered notable. drewmunn talk 06:51, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

List MacBook Pro-specific builds?
The Late 2013 MacBook Pros run build 13A3028. Shouldn't this be listed in the article's table of builds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktappe (talk • contribs) 20:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes; the pages for earlier OS X releases show the platform-specific builds. Guy Harris (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

"Most"?
The article currently says: "OS X Mavericks is compatible with most Macs that are capable of running OS X Mountain Lion".

The list of compatible models is exactly the same as on Mountain Lion's page, though. The hardware requirements mentioned here are identical, too. Are there any Macs which can run 10.8 but which can't run 10.9? If so, which? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.161.246 (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on OS X Mavericks. 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/preview/advanced-technologies.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The fallowing statement is not support by the citations. An additional citation is added.
"USB syncing of calendar, contacts and other information to iOS devices has been removed, instead requiring the use of iCloud.[18][19]"

The fallowing citation is added to support the quoted statement.

https://support.apple.com/kb/PH12117?locale=en_US

In my attempt to add the correct link, I found that citation numbers 17 and 18 appear while using the visual editor and citation numbers 18 and 19 appear when viewing the page normally. When I "reused" citation 17, it was listed as citation number 18 in normal view. something is wrong with this page and requires investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7C0:8101:E370:21D:4FFF:FEFD:7E0A (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It's probably something wrong with the visual editor, not with the page. Perhaps the visual editor doesn't properly handle named references. Guy Harris (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

iTunes incorrect link
In the "Support Status" section of the infobox, the link provided is incorrectly a 2006 link. I tried finding a 2021 link, but it didn't work properly. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 03:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)