Os Xi (11) [Archive] - MacRumors Forums

samdweck

Oct 6, 2002, 12:23 PM

Okay, so we have had OSX for a couple of years. Now I know that this is the most major OS Update in like five or six years, but really:

So OS 7 lasted a few years
OS 8 survived Two
and OS 9 survived another twoish
so how long does X have?

We certainly won't be seeing this for the next ten years? Will we? I mean we had Cheetah (10.0) Puma (10.1) and now we are on Jaguar (10.2)- next we'll see Panther I believe (10.3 or 10.5?) But it can only last so long- right? Just a thought. So what's next? When? With what processor? Feel free to dream, just answer me please!

edesignuk

Oct 6, 2002, 12:55 PM

IMHO OSX is so far ahead of the pack (Vs Winblows) that it has a good life left in it, as long as Apple continue to release steady updates as good as Jaguar I see it being around for quite a while yet. After all, there are many that believe that 10.2 is the first real useable version of X (in terms of speed) when compaired to OS9...this is just the beginning!

Durandal7

Oct 6, 2002, 01:35 PM

The 10 desigantion will most likely be kept around for a while. At the moment X is used to differentiate from the classic MacOS and to introduce XI might confuse people.

FattyMembrane

Oct 6, 2002, 01:59 PM

one of the huge differences between osx and classic is that osx is extremely upgradable. the classic mac os was at its core essentially the same from system 1-9. there were lots of changes and improvements to be sure, but many were hacks and aquired shareware utilities. apple could keep developing on the osx base for twice as long as they did with classic because it is so extensible, and as such, i'm sure that they'll eek out every .x update they can (10.3 10.4 ... 10.9) just to keep the osx name. i think to most of us computer nerds, it's not the name that matters, it's the features.

King Cobra

Oct 6, 2002, 02:30 PM

Apple has almost always used "Mac OS X" since 10.0, which shows strong dedication to "X" - 10.

I think if there was an OS 11, there would be no 11. Rather, there would be something like "Mac OS X 2.0". Right now, this is Mac OS X 1.2 (Jaguar) we are at. But, for some people, OS 10.x.x serves them well.

OS 10.1.5 = OS X 1.1.5
OS 10.2.2 = OS X 1.2.2

samdweck

Oct 6, 2002, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by Durandal7
The 10 desigantion will most likely be kept around for a while. At the moment X is used to differentiate from the classic MacOS and to introduce XI might confuse people.

xi is only confusing if ur an idiot who doesn't know roman numerals, or you're my momo who can't turn on a computer.

samdweck

Oct 6, 2002, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by King Cobra
Apple has almost always used "Mac OS X" since 10.0, which shows strong dedication to "X" - 10.

I think if there was an OS 11, there would be no 11. Rather, there would be something like "Mac OS X 2.0". Right now, this is Mac OS X 1.2 (Jaguar) we are at. But, for some people, OS 10.x.x serves them well.

OS 10.1.5 = OS X 1.1.5
OS 10.2.2 = OS X 1.2.2

Very good point... i truly agree... but why don't they call it that... just curious?

JupiterZen

Oct 6, 2002, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by samdweck

xi is only confusing if ur an idiot who doesn't know roman numerals, or you're my momo who can't turn on a computer.

But isn't Apple after those people as well ;) ... making the computer usable by idiots and geeks' parents ;)

JupiterZen

Oct 6, 2002, 02:45 PM

And Mac OS Xi would really be something ...

I'm not sure 'bout the rest of the world, but on this side of the planet we have an energydrink called Xi.

"Drink this ... and keep up with your processor ... "

"The taste of Xi will speed up your Mac experience ... "

:D :D :D

Durandal7

Oct 6, 2002, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by samdweck

xi is only confusing if ur an idiot who doesn't know roman numerals, or you're my momo who can't turn on a computer.

You don't understand marketing. Look around at OS X software boxes, they are marked with big blue Xs to set them apart from classic software. At the moment X is the common logo of the MacOS just like the old happy mac was.

King Cobra

Oct 6, 2002, 02:52 PM

>(samdweck) Very good point... i truly agree... but why don't they call it that... just curious?

Given the possible time frame of OS 10.x.x you brought up, by then, most people will better stand OS X in general, so they can probably more easily adopt to a variation in the OS X name.

Right now, OS X is still in production (rumors of 10.3, etc.), so we will probably have that going around for a while.

Think about it. What if right now Apple changed their latest build of OS X (which is 10.2.2) to OS X 1.2.2? Without question there would be confusion with some people, and that will not help OS X.

I suspect that the name change would be most beneficial when going from OS 10 to OS 11, which should be marketed as "the first version of OS X to the second version of OS X, Mac OS X 2.0."

samdweck

Oct 6, 2002, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by Durandal7

You don't understand marketing. Look around at OS X software boxes, they are marked with big blue Xs to set them apart from classic software. At the moment X is the common logo of the MacOS just like the old happy mac was.

no, i totally get that... and as for not understanding marketing, that has been my dad's profession for the last 12 years. What I was stating, and perhaps didn't say too well, was that the average mac user knows the difference between os x and os xi

Chaszmyr

Oct 6, 2002, 03:48 PM

Microsoft is planning their next major OS release sometime between 2005 and 2007 (i am guessing early 2007). At any rate I think you can expect Apple's next major OS release to be shortly before Microsoft's

pianojoe

Oct 6, 2002, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by samdweck

Very good point... i truly agree... but why don't they call it that... just curious?

I'd suggest calling the late 10.0.4 "OS X 0.4". Quite fitting in my opinion.

samdweck

Oct 6, 2002, 04:10 PM

Originally posted by pianojoe

I'd suggest calling the late 10.0.4 "OS X 0.4". Quite fitting in my opinion.

okay, now i see where you are going with this

strider42

Oct 6, 2002, 04:22 PM

Originally posted by King Cobra

OS 10.1.5 = OS X 1.1.5
OS 10.2.2 = OS X 1.2.2

Actually, I believe apple refers to OS X as "OS X 10.2" for jaguar. Its numbering didn't start with 1.0, it started at 10.0, with OS X as the brand name.

King Cobra

Oct 6, 2002, 04:27 PM

If you take a moment to think about it, Mac OS X 10.2 really doesn't make sense. X = 10 in Roman Numerals, and a 10.2 after that makes things more confusing. And, a while back, someone mentioned that Mac OS 10.x was actually OS X 1.x, or something like that. I forget where, but I'm assuming what he/she said is true, and I'm trying to expand on it.

samdweck

Oct 6, 2002, 04:44 PM

alex_ant

Oct 6, 2002, 04:59 PM

Apple should have started the version numbers over.

Mac OS 8 --> Mac OS 9 --> New Mac OS 1.0

Yeah, OS X is the 10th iteration of the OS used in Macs, but Apple should have designated more clearly that it was completely new and not based on any previous Mac OS.

strider42

Oct 6, 2002, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by alex_ant
Apple should have started the version numbers over.

Mac OS 8 --> Mac OS 9 --> New Mac OS 1.0

Yeah, OS X is the 10th iteration of the OS used in Macs, but Apple should have designated more clearly that it was completely new and not based on any previous Mac OS.

I think thats precisely why they are using OS X as a brand name, and keeping the OS numbering a separate thing (OS X v. 10.2) (for now anyway, how they will treat version 11 will be interesting)

Yeah, i know that this system doesn't really emphasize that OS X is completely different, but is that actually what they want to emphasize. I don't think they want to emphasis that its not based on the old mac OS, so much as I think they need to emphasize simply that it works and works well. The average user could care less what its based on.

samdweck

Oct 6, 2002, 07:33 PM

Originally posted by strider42

I think thats precisely why they are using OS X as a brand name, and keeping the OS numbering a separate thing (OS X v. 10.2) (for now anyway, how they will treat version 11 will be interesting)

Yeah, i know that this system doesn't really emphasize that OS X is completely different, but is that actually what they want to emphasize. I don't think they want to emphasis that its not based on the old mac OS, so much as I think they need to emphasize simply that it works and works well. The average user could care less what its based on.

so you are saying this is like a switch from dos to windows, on a higher level? like a totally new thing?

vitruvius

Oct 6, 2002, 08:22 PM

Introducing the brand new

MAC OS Y

:D

samdweck

Oct 6, 2002, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by vitruvius
Introducing the brand new

MAC OS Y

:D

Mac OS Y? huh... waht r u talking about... and btw, I can see the x as a brand name... brb... got to close windows, storm's ablowign!

Sun Baked

Oct 6, 2002, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by King Cobra
OS 10.1.5 = OS X 1.1.5
OS 10.2.2 = OS X 1.2.2
Apple released Mac OS X 1.0 as Mac OS X Server, it was the Unix server that was the thinly disguised version of the NeXT operating system. Note there was NO classic/carbon and if Apple went ahead with the consumer version all applications would have been Next or Cocoa.

http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/0001/12.server.shtml

This system didn't pass muster with people and Classic/Carbon was born and the numbering scheme ramped to Mac OS X 10.0

Maybe...

King Cobra

Oct 6, 2002, 08:56 PM

>http://maccentral.macworld.com/news...12.server.shtml

I cannot find one place where the author mentions Mac OS X 1.2, but instead only Mac OS X Server 1.2.

This seves my point further. The OS 10.x.x = OS X 1.x.x was ment to be an example, which is amplified in the site you posted, SB. But I'm guesing that the actual name change would take place at OS 11, not right now. Obviously, OS X 1.2 would not work right now.

As for separating the consumer X from the server X, add the word server between X and the version of OS X. :)

samdweck

Oct 6, 2002, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by King Cobra
>http://maccentral.macworld.com/news...12.server.shtml

I cannot find one place where the author mentions Mac OS X 1.2, but instead only Mac OS X Server 1.2.

This seves my point further. The OS 10.x.x = OS X 1.x.x was ment to be an example, which is amplified in the site you posted, SB. But I'm guesing that the actual name change would take place at OS 11, not right now. Obviously, OS X 1.2 would not work right now.

As for separating the consumer X from the server X, add the word server between X and the version of OS X. :)

Now you have me thoroughly confused, so i am going to conclude that the "os 11" will be OS X Version 2 10.0

Sun Baked

Oct 6, 2002, 09:11 PM

They never released Mac OS X 1.0 to the public, the only way to get ahold of a copy of OS X was buy OS X Server or get the Rhapsody developers copy.

Back then it was OS 9 and Appleshare or Mac OS X Server for servers and OS 9 only for the consumers.

If you look at an old of OS X Server 1.0/Rhapsody you'll see how much OS X has matured in the past few years. Back then there was nearly zero compatibility between OS 9 and OS X.

Caron/Classic made the switch to OS X 10.0 painless compared to the pain you would have felt with 1.0

szark

Oct 7, 2002, 02:07 AM

The X in OS X also makes slight reference to UNIX. (X windowing system, etc.)

Besides, Mac OS X 10.9 is certainly not the last possible version -- they could go to Mac OS X 10.42 if they felt like it...

MacBandit

Oct 7, 2002, 02:13 AM

In many ways I feel that 10.2 is the equivalent of 11. There are as many big changes in 10.2 as there was for any full version change in the past 8.6->9 for example.

dongmin

Oct 7, 2002, 04:03 AM

Originally, I think Apple wanted "OS X" to have a double meaning, X as in the roman numeral 10 and X as in Unix. But over time it's become clear that Apple is treating the X separate from the numerical designation. As many have noted, X is now the product brand name and has little if any to do with the version number.

So it's unlikely Apple will drop the X moniker or change it to something like Xi. Rather, they may go to something like Mac OS X 11.0 when the next big upgrade rolls around

samdweck

Oct 7, 2002, 06:30 AM

Originally posted by dongmin
Originally, I think Apple wanted "OS X" to have a double meaning, X as in the roman numeral 10 and X as in Unix. But over time it's become clear that Apple is treating the X separate from the numerical designation. As many have noted, X is now the product brand name and has little if any to do with the version number.

So it's unlikely Apple will drop the X moniker or change it to something like Xi. Rather, they may go to something like Mac OS X 11.0 when the next big upgrade rolls around

I get what you are saying, there used to be Mac OS, and Now we have Mac OS X. That makes perfect sense. Another example of when this *sort of* happened was the switch from "system" 7 to "OS" 8.

beez7777

Oct 8, 2002, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by samdweck

Mac OS Y? huh... waht r u talking about... and btw, I can see the x as a brand name... brb... got to close windows, storm's ablowign!

i believe he was being facetious.

PrettyMan

Oct 8, 2002, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by King Cobra
If you take a moment to think about it, Mac OS X 10.2 really doesn't make sense. X = 10 in Roman Numerals, and a 10.2 after that makes things more confusing. And, a while back, someone mentioned that Mac OS 10.x was actually OS X 1.x, or something like that. I forget where, but I'm assuming what he/she said is true, and I'm trying to expand on it.

And what about iChat, iDisk, iMac, iCalendar, iMovie, iTunes....?

i=I=1 in Roman Numerals. All the iXXXX applications must be 1XXXX applications. Can you imagine it 1Chat, 1Disk,....

And what about the entire name ? Mac OS X 10.2

M=1000, A is the 1st letter, O=0, X=10, 10=10 and 2=2. The rewritten name must be:

10001010102, wonderful and very commercial isn't it ?

:) :) :) :) :)

Sorry everybody !!!

benixau

Oct 10, 2002, 12:39 PM

It has been set in stone by the people who make Apple a successful company that the nextmajor version number shall be:

Mac OS X 11.0

Proof:

OSX boxes said Mac OS X now with version 10.1. OSX is the brand name.

King Cobra

Oct 10, 2002, 05:18 PM

>(PrettyMan) And what about iChat, iDisk, iMac, iCalendar, iMovie, iTunes....?

The lowercase "i" meant internet, but it has become obsolete now. It doesn't represent a roman numeral. Would the M in Mac mean 1000 acs? :)
...

>And what about the entire name ? Mac OS X 10.2

>M=1000, A is the 1st letter, O=0, X=10, 10=10 and 2=2. The rewritten name must be: 10001010102, wonderful and very commercial isn't it ?

You are quite the comic. I would advice you to recommend this to Apple, while I recommend converting the names iTunes, iCal, and so forth to a binary code.
iCal: i=9, P=3, a=1, l=12
iCal: 11001111111
Introducing the new 11001111111. :p

Yeah. I like the idea of Mac OS X 11.0 much better than my theme, or the old OS 11, or OS XI.

Tommy!

Oct 10, 2002, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by strider42

Actually, I believe apple refers to OS X as "OS X 10.2" for jaguar. Its numbering didn't start with 1.0, it started at 10.0, with OS X as the brand name.

yes. if you go to About This Mac, the window says "Mac OS X version 10.2.1" the "mac os 11" would be called "mac OS X version 11.X.X"