Jump to content

Talk:OS X El Capitan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hardware requirements?

[edit]

What are the minimum hardware requirements for OS X 10.11? Will it run on any Mac that is capable of running Yosemite? 195.10.114.196 (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I've added it to the article.--Totie (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Trolling "v11.0"

[edit]

This is happening again; should we already request a protection? This seems bad for a new page where lots of people might have things to contribute, but these persons will not stop. #!/bin/DokReggar -talk 12:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of a long-term vandalism/trolling campaign - see AIV reports. Some of the affected pages have been protected, others not. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can't we request a long-term block on those pages from these IP subnets? #!/bin/DokReggar -talk 12:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that has been thought of, but there are a lot of subnets there. You could raise it at WP:LTA. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I am not familiar enough with Wikipedia procedures. Thanks for the information, though; someone better versed than me might give a hand! #!/bin/DokReggar -talk 13:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Someone keeps posting this over and over again, after it's reverted each time. What can we do about this? Cin316 (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revert the changes. Again. Temporary blocks are probably not the best for a new article, and these people have been trolling since a long time (see the page on OS X Yosemite for information). And I am not familiar enough with the mechanisms pointed out by Rwxrwxrwx above. #!/bin/DokReggar -talk 13:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The admins seem to have been handling it well, blocking addresses and protecting pages where necessary, but they can't over-protect and end up blocking genuine IP editors. Just keep reverting and reporting at WP:AIV and hopefully they will get tired of it. WP:DFTT is good advice. I'm away on holidays at the moment so unfortunately I can't respond as quickly as before. Cheers. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 08:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2015

[edit]

It has been released for public beta testers, too. Please edit.


I don't know how I can upload the screenshot of the email, but, yeah. Ideaman924 (talk) 12:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: It already says that in the infobox. Bazj (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2015

[edit]

Public beta is now available. 101.127.10.208 (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information added (except for the build number; does anybody have that?). Guy Harris (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Future tense

[edit]

I think it makes sense to use the future tense vis-a-vis releasing El Capitan, but the software already exists (otherwise there wouldn't be an article). Can we use the present tense aside from the introductory summary paragraph and where discussing the actual released version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamnelson (talk • contribs) 13:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

edit semi-protected - SEASON

[edit]

Article currently reads in part "announced to be available to end users in the fall of 2015". MOS:SEASON states that "seasons to refer to a particular time of year (winter 1995) is ambiguous, because Northern and Southern Hemisphere seasons are six months out of phase". The phrase should probably be changed to either "announced to be available to end users in late 2015" or "announced to be available to end users toward the end of 2015". 208.81.212.222 (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done–Totie (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

edit semi-protected - SPECIFICLINK

[edit]

The article currently reads, in part, "and compute API Metal" with a link to both Application programming interface for API and Metal (API) for Metal. That goes against WP:SPECIFICLINK, "Always link to the article on the most specific topic appropriate to the context from which you link" and so it should simply be linked as and compute [[Metal (API)|API Metal]]. It wouldn't hurt to have the sentence make a bit more sense as it is currently not clear what the change is, but I don't have a concrete suggestion to fix that. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done–Totie (talk) 22:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
using the {{main}} was an even better idea. 208.81.212.222 (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Totie: please fix editprotected templates when you handle requests. (as the template says, add |answered=yes or equivalent) Thanks --Jeremyb (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2015

[edit]

Public Beta 2 OS build version is incorrect. it should be 15A225f, not 15A226f. Hkatsura (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[citation needed] --Jeremyb (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
http://osxdaily.com/2015/07/22/os-x-el-capitan-public-beta-2-released-for-testing/
Done–Totie (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reception needs updated

[edit]

The "reception" bit needs updated, or perhaps a new section, because if you look at the App Store, it has 2.5 out of 5 stars. I myself have been very annoyed by this "upgrade." They removed "Secure Delete," completely destroyed the disc utility, and made it so I can't even change when my computer sleeps (only lets me choose when the display turns off). A LOT of people are VERY unhappy with this, so I do not know why the article has not mentioned this at all. Zagadka314 (talk) 03:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need permission to expand that section, but: reviews from reliable sources only.–Totie (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "reception section" needs updates indeed; only positive reception has been mentioned here, while e.g.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2015

[edit]

Make an edit and a reference that tell that OS X 10.11.3 beta 1 was released on December 16, 2015. 173.76.106.200 (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Guy Harris (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2015

[edit]

Add semi lock 122.62.42.99 (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My semi already has a lock; I always lock it when I park at a truck stop. It doesn't need to have a lock added. :-)
What exactly do you mean by "add semi lock"? Guy Harris (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They probably mean the customary lock icon in the top-right corner of the article. I just added it.–Totie (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done–Totie (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So marking a page as protected (presumably not done by adding {{pp-protect}}, as that would let anybody do it) doesn't automatically cause the lock to appear? Guy Harris (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Harris: The lock icon is a template while the protection process is done through a tab that only admins can see on each page. If the admin uses Twinkle the entire process can be done with a few clicks but if they just protecting the page they can forget to add the lock icon template. It depends on the admin, but if they are in a hurry or have other things on their mind they can forget to take that extra step and add the lock icon. Since the icon is just a nice "instant" reminder that the page is protected it isn't really necessary to have it. All editors without the proper privileges will just see "view source" instead of the "edit" tab when they visit the page. --Stabila711 (talk) 03:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of VRAM in the Features section

[edit]

The article mentions VRAM in the Features section. The VRAM article is about a type of obsolete DRAM used in the 1980s and 1990s; and is not what this article is referring to. Since this article is protected, I can't remove the link myself, as my account has yet to be confirmed. Could someone please remove the link? AZ1199 (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List Installer App Versions in the Release Chart in New Column, Please

[edit]

Hi, If a column could be added to the release chart with the Version numbers of the
Installer Apps, it’d be helpful. The 10.11.1 Installer app was Version 1.7.33 created 10/17/15,
and the 10.11.2 Installer app was Version 1.7.37 created 12/2/15. UPDATE: The current version (10.11.3) as of January 19 2016 is 1.7.41

FWIW, I also still have a Yosemite Install app dated August 2015, version number 1.6.43.

Since Apple names these install apps without without rev numbers included in the name of the app, this will be a big help in telling them apart, so as to be able to certify that it’s the most recently released version

Thanks. Once I get my digital hands on the current beta, I’ll pass the VN(s) along in this space. (UPDATED ABOVE)

Schweiwikist (talk) 10:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: I personally do not see the relevance of this. Is there another article that does this?–Totie (talk) 13:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2016

[edit]

On the "Releases" section, the latest beta 10.11.4 release date is wrong it should date February 8, 2016. The build number for the beta release 10.11.4 also does not match the build number on the "general information" box on top right. Please review carefully these observations. Charlie7705 (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)  Not done @Charlie7705: Please supply us with a reliable source to support your claims. Reopen the request when you have one. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

El Capitan is horribly received. Reception NEEDS to be edited.

[edit]

Who ever wrote the 'Reception' part either is extremely misinformed, or extremely biased. Take a look at the user-reviews in the Apple app-store for El Capitan. It is THE worst user-rated OS X updated ever.

Many user's productivity took a HUGE hit when they 'upgraded' to this OS. It has both software and hardware implications on user's and that is no reflected in the reception section of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by John D Bronson (talk • contribs) 16:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


split view

[edit]

Will be useful to add how to use it, pressing the green botton on the upper left corner of the window — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.49.233 (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2016

[edit]

The lastest release date is not counting correctly, it says 1 day ago Tanchee06 (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - as it now says 6 days ago - this is a semi-automatic age which isn't even on this page, it is "transcluded" from another page. Although the semi-automatic age needs an edit (any edit) to the page to update it, it is far better than a purely manual age. - Arjayay (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if you've enabled the purge button, a purge will force the update as well. Guy Harris (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2016

[edit]

The latest preview release 10.11.5 beta date since released is not counting correctly. it says april 6 "6 days ago", it should 10 days ago

Tanchee06 (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That date comes from a template, and sometimes you need to do a purge of the page to get it to be up to date. Guy Harris (talk) 06:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protected edit request on June 9 - Minimum system requirements

[edit]

The Mac Mini Mid 2007 is not supported by El Capitan since it has the GMA 950. Reference : https://support.apple.com/kb/SP728?locale=en_GB — Preceding unsigned comment added by KawaiiAuracchi (talk • contribs) 17:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What comes next

[edit]

I just learned from Google News that 10.12 is Sierra. Is this right?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to the question is "macOS Sierra"; whether it's "macOS 12" or "macOS 10.12", I don't know yet. Guy Harris (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"macOS 10.12", according to the download page for the beta on developer.apple.com. Guy Harris (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on OS X El Capitan. 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:

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) 18:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The archived site was for Yosemite, not El Capitan; El Capitan is the current release, so the link is currently valid. When Apple releases Sierra, then we can point it - and the link in the infobox - at an archived version, but it should point to an archived version for El Capitan, not Yosemite. Guy Harris (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

End of support, source please?

[edit]

I'd really like to know what the source for this in the Infobox is, please?

"|support status = Unsupported as of August 2018. iTunes support ends next year."

Personally I've stopped receiving any updates since about this time, and all my installed Mac App Store apps say the minimum requirement is 10.12, but I still have my older versions with no updates forthcoming. Thank you to anyone that can help. Ken K. Smith (a.k.a. Thin Smek) (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apple's support policy is arbitrary and ambiguous, to say the least. They never seem to officially announce the end of support for any OS version. Further, they muddy the waters by continuing to update certain components while not updating the other components. For what it's worth, Google Chrome is still updated and supported on OS X Yosemite 10.10 (source: https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/7100626?hl=en), which hasn't been "supported" by Apple in more than two years (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS_X_Yosemite#Release_history). Also, Apple requires the latest version of OS X for certain products like iMovie, even though the previous versions of the OS are still supported. Case in point, OS Sierra is still supported but iMovie and Pages, Keynote, etc require OS High Sierra 10.3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.211.46.240 (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support for Google Chrome depends on Google's support policy, not Apple's. Google might also, for example, choose to support Google Chrome on Windows 7 even after it's no longer on extended support - W7 is already not on mainstream support. Guy Harris (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both, and thank you for your edits, IP editor. I do remember getting an iTunes update this year as you just put in the Infobox. Ken K. Smith (a.k.a. User:Thin Smek) (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amazed and disappointed to find on 7 October 2021 this OS, barely six years old, aand which I happen to have on a Mac Pro which is going to cost a bit to replace, since it won't accommodate more up to date OS ( and cost, new, the equicalent of a viable second-hand car, is to lose all suport on 31 October 2021. And still no discussion explaining Apple's policy of operating in this apparently arbitrary fashion. The same reflection applies to all my fellow Wikipedians, some of whom must have been in the know since at the latest the middle of this yearDelahays (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:OS_X_El_Capitan&oldid=1247540961"