Template talk:MacOS

	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Apple Inc. This template is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Mac, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Apple Inc.Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc.Template:WikiProject Apple Inc.Apple Inc.

to Template:Apple software Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 21:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Mac OS X}} lists all the apps that ship with OS X. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking the liberty of trimming this template so it's smaller, sleeker, and less unwieldy. IMO, a better place for this info would be a "List of Mac OS X components" page. If you are unhappy with my changes, feel free to revert; I am not posessive about changes I make. --unforgettableid | talk to me 04:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be at all possible to add the Mac OS X link inside the table? The centering is off when it is just regular wiki text... Paul^C/_T+ 17:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved Spotlight into the Technology section because it's really not an Application. I think it fits better there. If anyone strongly disagrees, you can change it back.

Galendw 20:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC) Galen D. W.[reply]

This table is way too big. It dwarfs about half of the articles it links. I was planning to go through and removing links to all the stubby articles but I thought of a better idea. How about we break this into separate templates? "Mac OS X technologies", "Mac OS X bundled applications" etc? AlistairMcMillan 16:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it necessary to differentiate between the major applications used by most Mac OS X users on a daily basis and the smaller utilities (which is mostly those that are in the /Applications/Utilities directory). But should it be split further into two or three different templates? (apps, utilities and technology)? --Baryonic Being 10:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed a couple of things about the box that might be of interest, so I tweaked it and rather than update it, here's a draft to play with right on this page if that's okay. Front Row is missing and I tried italicizing the future features. It's true that the sucker is big but that kinda depends on your individual screen real estate. It strikes me the thing is like a big scoreboard, updating as Apple moves forward with OS X. Schweiwikist 04:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the codes between the noincludes has been nowikid for this draft!)

[[Category:Computing templates|{{PAGENAME}}]] [[Category:Mac OS X| {{PAGENAME}}]] [[Category:Mac OS X Server| {{PAGENAME}}]] [[it:Template:Mac OS X]]

I decided to be somewhat bold and refreshed the whole template to fit into the rather splendid Navigational Template. As a bonus, I rolled in the Developer tools template. Any thoughts? —Down10 ^TACO 07:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but you do realise that this means that the template looks completely different now depending on which skin people use when visiting Wikipedia? I'm not sure whether this is a benefit. AlistairMcMillan 19:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's just too large. Maybe should be split across smaller articles. It shouldn't list every application or feature that comes by default with MacOSX, imagine we do a similar thing with the Linux template...

The name for the next version of OS X has not been oficially announced yet. Maybe it's "Lion". Removing this edit since it is highly misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.0.168 (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um... 10.7 was announced back in october 2010 at the "Back to the Mac" event and is called Mac OS X 10.7 "Lion" --Colejohnson66 (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was an old message. I don't think Mac OS X Lion was even announced when this user posted that.--megamanfan3 (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this template list X11.app under "discontinued", when the article proper states that it's still maintained and included in new releases of Mac OS?

I see that it's been added and removed once or twice already, so I figured I'd ask here.

24.108.194.150 (talk) 11:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to the main "utilities" section.

24.108.194.150 (talk) 06:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See OS X Mountain Lion. I have updated X11.app with the relevant news item. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the www.apple.com/ru (Russian site) links everywhere! 20:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1205:5002:C940:BDCF:1904:CB62:F7F8 (talk)

• @2A02:1205:5002:C940:BDCF:1904:CB62:F7F8: You are welcome to fix those links wherever you find them. If any of the articles are protected, you should put an edit request on the article's talk page. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right now there's nothing on the template that links to Classic Mac OS ("Classic Environment" near the bottom resolves to List_of_built-in_macOS_apps#Classic.) While I realize "macOS" (the name of the tempalte) refers to the distinct operating system that began life as OS X, I think just for clarity of information/navigation, it's valuable to link there. A space within "Versions" at the top above "Mac OS X" seems a bit too prominent, but anywhere other than versions seems inappropriate. Does anyone have any thoughts? Ehler (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A "Predecessors" section, listing Classic Mac OS and NeXTSTEP? Guy Harris (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a very good idea, with NeXTSTEP being the more honest predecessor in a sense. If I were trying to come up with a slightly broader category, maybe I'd say "related" and have iOS and Apple DOS (though the latter is a bit of a stretch), but I think your idea of predecessors and just those two is an overall better one. Ehler (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]