Apple's OS X Mavericks goes gold; may be released in late October

The longer-than-normal wait for the next version of OS X may soon be coming to an end. OS X 10.9, also known by its code name Mavericks, has now officially "gone gold" and is now available for Mac developers to download from Apple.

9to5Mac.com reports that the gold master for 10.9 is also available for Apple employees and AppleSeed users. This news likely means that the public launch of Mavericks will happen sometime late in October, as previously rumored.

Apple released the current version of OS X, Mountain Lion, in July 2012, but apparently Apple delayed the launch of Mavericks so that the company could concentrate most of its development resources to finish iOS 7, which was launched in September.

Apple first announced Mavericks in June as part of their WWDC event and is supposed to have a number of new features and improvements, including adding new native iBooks and Map apps, a way to store passwords called iCloud Keychain, better support for multiple monitors and more.

Apple is also expected to release a number of new Mac models this fall alongside the Mavericks launch. In fact, the company has been running a teaser video for its upcoming Mac Pro update in movie theaters for the last several months.

Source: 9to5Mac.com | Image via Apple

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Google finally releases AdMob SDK beta for Windows Phone 8 developers

Next Story

Microsoft only paid 79 percent of Steve Ballmer's incentive bonus in 2013

52 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Have to say that I am impressed by the overall performance of the OS. application launches, responsiveness of the GUI, wake from sleep, even Safari all scream.

I just don't understand why it's taken so long to add these "basic" features to OS X. Same can be said about Windows 8.1 - only a handful of features have been added, yet the update took several months to complete.

The first thing I do when I'm on OS X is:
- disable mouse acceleration
- disable window effects
- enable one app in view at a time (with desktop hidden in the background - was part of General Controls in Mac OS 9)
- disable Mission Control
- disable iOS-like features

I wish Apple would add options to do the first three without having to go through the terminal.

68k said,
I just don't understand why it's taken so long to add these "basic" features to OS X. Same can be said about Windows 8.1 - only a handful of features have been added, yet the update took several months to complete.

The first thing I do when I'm on OS X is:
- disable mouse acceleration
- disable window effects
- enable one app in view at a time (with desktop hidden in the background - was part of General Controls in Mac OS 9)
- disable Mission Control
- disable iOS-like features

I wish Apple would add options to do the first three without having to go through the terminal.

What is "enable one app in view at a time"?

And what kind of iOS-like features are you talking about?

68k said,
But a crumb trail (like introduced in Vista) would be nice.

In Finder, if you go to View > Show Path Bar it does show breadcrumbs; is that what you mean?

MidTxWRX said,
Downloaded and installed. Cool new features. Most excited about its support for SMB2.

Everyone is excited for 2006 technology to make it to OS X.

Shaun said,
because I am allowed to.

Be sure to jam a fork in your upper leg too. Since, you know, you're allowed to do that as well.

Shaun said,
because I am allowed to.

Just disappointing to see posts purely intended to incite or encourage argument. No attempt at making it a discussion point, or expressing a relevant point of view. Shame.

Shaun said,
You joined in 2001, it should be no surprise at all

Actually even after all this time, the attitude of some members (especially those who've been here as long as you have) continues to surprise me.

Shaun said,
No thanks.

Please, this is unnecessary. If you cant behave as a mature individual dont spoil a, until now, perfectly civil news' thread.

DKAngel said,
can they bloody move on from os X now and call it something different

Certainly would be nice to see OS11 at some point!

Probably not since it has gone from being a version number to a brand. OS X is the name of the OS, and the actual version number follows it. Eventually they'll probably release an OS X v11.00

Spicoli said,
Has the last release even broken 4% market share yet?
This is the same guy who accuses everyone of trolling on Microsoft articles. Yet look what he's dong. Hey Spiccy, Apple is dong just fine where they are. They are the most valuable company even with their low market share. Try trolling harder.

Probably. What about Windows Phone 8's market share? I mean, if we're going to knock on Apple for having 4% on desktop, can we knock on Microsoft for only having 3% on mobile? Or as Steve Ballmer puts it, "almost no share."

The problem with focusing only on marketshare, which is something you constantly bring up as if the only measure of a company's success, is that you miss the bigger picture. It's kind of like bragging about how your favorite football team beat the pants off of that other team a few games ago, but they've lost every other game that season.

so...12 years ago OSX 10.0 was released and it's still in 10.9 version? that means by 2113 we will get OSXI (11.0)?

Praetor said,
so...12 years ago OSX 10.0 was released and it's still in 10.9 version? that means by 2113 we will get OSXI (11.0)?

Windows NT was released over 20 years ago and it's only at version 6.3.

.Neo said,

Windows NT was released over 20 years ago and it's only at version 6.3.

Well technically it should be version 9 But MS uses 6.x to keep compatibility with older programs / setup files that won't install / work.

-Razorfold said,

Well technically it should be version 9 But MS uses 6.x to keep compatibility with older programs / setup files that won't install / work.

Yeah, I'm aware of the explanation. Doesn't change the fact Windows 8 is still only version 6.x. Since a lot of people like to focus on OS X' version numbering, they should do the same with Windows. We all know version numbering is EVERYTHING right?

.Neo said,

Yeah, I'm aware of the explanation. Doesn't change the fact Windows 8 is still only version 6.x. Since a lot of people like to focus on OS X' version numbering, they should do the same with Windows. We all know version numbering is EVERYTHING right?

Version numbers are Jesus himself. How dare you not blindly follow them and believe in their significance?!?!

-Razorfold said,

Well technically it should be version 9 But MS uses 6.x to keep compatibility with older programs / setup files that won't install / work.

It really doesn't matter, but the version number wouldn't be nine.

Also the version is not for compatibility. The PAC would compensate for any poorly coded Applications that looked for Vista or newer >= 6.x

Mobius Enigma said,

It really doesn't matter, but the version number wouldn't be nine.

Also the version is not for compatibility. The PAC would compensate for any poorly coded Applications that looked for Vista or newer >= 6.x

The Version numbering on windows WAS done for compatibility, Microsoft themselves stated that because of the jump from a version 5.x to 6.x kernel with Vista it broke a lot of programs that ran on XP which is the reason Windows 8 is only version 6.2

The PAC doesn't compensate for programs that are hard coded to look for a specific NT kernel version number which is why Vista broke programs that ran on XP.

neo158 said,

The Version numbering on windows WAS done for compatibility, Microsoft themselves stated that because of the jump from a version 5.x to 6.x kernel with Vista it broke a lot of programs that ran on XP which is the reason Windows 8 is only version 6.2

The PAC doesn't compensate for programs that are hard coded to look for a specific NT kernel version number which is why Vista broke programs that ran on XP.

'hard coded'? So what is 'soft coded'?

This probably is not the place for this debate...

Windows Vista/7/8 has several layers of application compatibility technologies.

The PCA is the one you or users would see; however, there are additional levels of technology that is transparent to the end user.

These include real-time code/API correction, a compatibility database, and a scope of virtualization technologies.

The real-time part of this technology also has several layers from known issues to monitor and correct that is pulled from the compatibility database to noticing problems and correcting them on the fly.

The real-time 'compatibility' can often detect and fix things like assembly code errors, kernel level execution errors, memory/pointer errors, API errors, versioning errors, DLL location errors, etc etc. (This is a rather long list of things.)

Most of the time these errors are never seen by the end user as Windows just compensates or fixes things on the fly and the old/bad software continues to run as expected.

Side Note:
This is why Windows 7 & 8 are HIGHLY stable OSes. In addition to the OS itself being more resilient and stable, buggy applications will continue to run and work as expected instead of crashing out as they would do on an older version of Windows.

So 'magically' even bad software just works and continues to work without crashing because of the compatibility technologies in Windows.


Regarding Vista and version numbers...

These compatibility technologies were started with Vista, but were expanded upon greatly in Windows 7. Even in the RTM version of Vista that had less real-time correction technology, the PCA was in place to hand whatever version number the software wanted to see and adapt how the process ran on the OS.
(Even if it was 'hard coded'.)


The real reason the version numbers track as they do is with regard to a key set of technologies and the main tree and forks. Windows 8 is still just built on top of Vista's new architectural changes. This is why they share the same 'family' of 6.x versioning.


PS Any developer that writes inflexible code like (If OS <> 6.1 then FAIL) they need to be punched in the head repeatedly.

"The longer-than-normal wait for the next version of OS X may soon be coming to an end." - No idea what you mean by that. Apple never gave a concrete release date and OS X Mavericks was announced only four months ago. It has to be one of the quickest OS X releases in history from introduction to GM.

My mother just ordered a new Macbook Air, it will arrive sometime around the 15th. Will she get a coupon to upgrade for free to Mavericks?

sanctified said,
My mother just ordered a new Macbook Air, it will arrive sometime around the 15th. Will she get a coupon to upgrade for free to Mavericks?
Yes she will depending on the announcement from Apple on the price. There was chatter that it might be a free upgrade, if its not the purchase is within the 30 days of the release and there will be details on Apples website in the coming weeks called the Mavericks Up-To-Date Program.

Edited by Aaron Olive, Oct 4 2013, 12:47pm :

Looking forward to trying it out! The last version I think that will look this way; I expect 10.10 to look much like iOS 7, but we will have to wait and see!

You are right. The iOS 7 style will come to OS X as well, since we can assume they want to keep things unified as much as possible.

Personally, I would like things to go the other way; not flat with pastel colors, but toward 3D and more depth instead.