Talk:MacOS Tahoe

request to delete draft to this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

hi,

you created a copy of this article, i have submitted another article for review, but it was the best article, can you delete this article? 2406:B400:B5:4F11:8158:5C5:9018:136A (talk) 10:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done Agent 007 (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

macOS Tahoe is the 22nd macOS release

Let us count:

• Mac OS X 10.0 - 1st
• Mac OS X 10.1 - 2nd
• Mac OS X 10.2 Jaguar - 3rd
• Mac OS X 10.3 Panther - 4th
• Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger - 5th
• Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard - 6th
• Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard - 7th
• Mac OS X 10.7 Lion - 8th
• OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion - 9th
• OS X 10.9 Mavericks - 10th
• OS X 10.10 Yosemite - 11th
• OS X 10.11 El Capitan - 12th
• macOS 10.12 Sierra - 13th
• macOS 10.13 High Sierra - 14th
• macOS 10.14 Mojave - 15th
• macOS 10.15 Catalina - 16th
• macOS 11 Big Sur - 17th
• macOS 12 Monterey - 18th
• macOS 13 Ventura - 19th
• macOS 14 Sonoma - 20th
• macOS 15 Sequoia - 21st
• macOS 29 Tahoe - 22nd

Do not change the release from "twenty-second". Guy Harris (talk) 07:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Clarification on devices that have support dropped

https://www.apple.com/ca/os/macos/ contains a list of supported devices with the "least advanced" or earliest device in that product line listed. The website states that all Apple Silicon Macbook Air & Pro models are supported, thus the clarification that the unsupported 13' 2020 2-port Macbook Pro is specifically the Intel model as there is an identical Apple Silicon model of the same year that remains supported as per the website stating that all Apple Silicon devices are supported.

The "Supported Hardware" section can be left alone as the text does make this clarification prior to the list, but the sidebar "Support Status" section does not. Additionally, is the clarification that the 2019 Macbook Air is Intel necessary? There is no Apple Silicon Macbook Air until 2020 as per https://www.apple.com/ca/mac/compare/ so the distinction may be unnecessary there.

Also going ahead with updating that section's dropped devices to match with the "Supported Hardware" section; the normal iMac model has been dropped up to the 2020 model as well. Angeldescended (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

MacOs Build 25A8353

Is anyone able to provide a citation on where I can validate build #25A8353 is legitimate? I am unable to find any Apple documentation and feel like I may be missing it. Furthermore, if is a legitimate build are we able to put a release date for it? If it is tied to the MacBook Pro M5 computers, I recommend putting the date that those were available to the public. Let me know if you all would be aligned with that logic. ObsoleteTurtle (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Admanny ObsoleteTurtle (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Apple won't ever announce it but this is standard practice. See iOS and iPadOS 26 pages. Just search for "25A8353" it's documented on build-tracking sites. Admanny (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you for providing that explanation. I went through all of iOS, iPadOS, and macOS pages like you mentioned. I was only able to find 4 instances in the history where release dates were left null. Those pages were macOS Jaguar, Panther, Leopard, and El Capitan. The most recent os versions for iOS, iPadOS, and macOS all have a null date for the instance where a new build was pre installed on the new hardware, which all coincide with same use case we are discussing here with Tahoe. So in total we are looking at 7 out of 49 pages (~14%).

I am struggling to understand how we are defining release date in the wiki page. I would define release date as the day the OS version became available to the public. So in this situation it would align with the date that the new hardware became available to the public. Can you elaborate as to why a null release date is logical? Maybe I am misconstruing how release date is supposed to work here. ObsoleteTurtle (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

"Mac OS XVI" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mac OS XVI has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 2 § Mac OS XVI until a consensus is reached. Casablanca 🪨^(T) 00:31, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Include Darwin Version with beta versions?

I see that the Darwin Version field remains empty for beta releases. Why is it not provided? I'm not quite experienced with macOS and don't have a Mac, but I believe that uname commands output the darwin version, so why is it not provided?

Keyboard1000n17 (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

but I believe that uname commands output the darwin version, so why is it not provided? It outputs the Darwin version of th OS on which you run the command; if whoever edits the page to add a new version doesn't happen to have a machine running that version, running uname won't help. You don't need to have the beta (or released!) version in question to add it to the table, you just need a reference for the release beta number, the build, and the release date. Guy Harris (talk) 08:55, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Oh ok. So it is simply not that helpful? Keyboard1000n17 (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

If by "it" you're referring to uname, uname is useful, but it's not sufficient - for a particular OS version, you'd need to have a machine (real or virtual) running that version on which to run uname to get the Darwin version. Guy Harris (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

So if i were to have a Mac (vm/real), i could upgrade that to find the darwin version? Is the fact that most people do not have a Mac machine the reason the darwin version is not listed for beta and security releases? Keyboard1000n17 (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

So if i were to have a Mac (vm/real), i could upgrade that to find the darwin version? Yes. You'd have to allow beta updates, and be willing to run a beta on it (that's why I'd suggest either a real machine that's not your main machine, or a virtual machine you're using for betas).

Is the fact that most people do not have a Mac machine the reason the darwin version is not listed for beta and security releases? For security releases, it's that either they don't have a Mac or they don't have a Mac running a release for which the security fix is an update and don't want to bother running a VM with that version. For beta releases, it's that either they don't have a Mac or they have a Mac but they don't want to run a beta release on it and don't want to bother running a VM with that beta. Guy Harris (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok then, understood. Keyboard1000n17 (talk) 06:47, 15 January 2026 (UTC)

Update the Desktop Screenshot with New Icons?

Now that Apple Creator Studio has officially been launched as of today, I want to ask if it would be necessary to update the screenshot with the new ACS app icons (e.g., iWork) or keep the screenshot as it is. AzureSaturn 20:55, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

Shouldn’t 26.3.1 be marked as latest version along with 26.3.2?

In the chart, the {{Version}} template for 26.3.1 marks it as an “old versions that no longer receive updates” while it is very much the current version for all Macs but the MacBook Neo. 26.3.2, released only to support the MacBook Neo (because “updating” all other macs with a version that has no changes for them would be silly), is the only version marked as current. This has always been normal for new Mac models, and a later release, usually the next one, runs on the new model and all the others. (Sometimes it’s a separate branch that later gets merged into the main line, and sometimes it’s just a later build of the main line.) This time that will probably have the version string “26.3.3”, and it will be the immediate descendent of both 26.3.1 and 26.3.2.

Is there not a better way to handle this than marking the current version for all but one model as old? Stephan Leeds (talk) 00:05, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

This time that will probably have the version string “26.3.3” No, it has the version string "26.4". :-)

If this happens in the future, the right thing to do is probably to mention both of the versions - or builds of the same version, e.g. "macOS 27.3 (26D53)" for most machines and "macOS 27.3 (26D5053)" for the new MacBook Foldable - in the templates. Guy Harris (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2026 (UTC)