Jaguar = OS X 10.5???

[Taft]

An article on MacObserver.com states that Apple contacted them with an e-mail saying that they shouldn't refer to Jaguar as OS X 10.2.

Article: http://www.macobserver.com/article/2002/05/13.8.shtml

This begs the question, what are they going to call the next major release of OS X?? And more importantly, what are they going to charge for it???

This could get interesting...

Taft

[Hemingray]

Now that I think of it, you're right! That IS interesting... nowhere does Apple refer to it as 10.2... only "Jaguar".

And notice the URL: http://www.apple.com/macosx/newversion/

That leaves it pretty open. It could very well become 10.5.

[AlphaTech]

Could they be jumping from OS X, to OS XI?? Just a stray thought.

[Rower_CPU]

Interesting indeed...

Do you think they'll stick with the roman numeral designation (XI) or simply continue as they have (OS X 11)?

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Interesting indeed...

Do you think they'll stick with the roman numeral designation (XI) or simply continue as they have (OS X 11)?

I think they would go with OS XI, rather then toss in additional numbers... Just thinking about it... OS ten eleven.... sounds like it should be OS 1011... wonder what that means in binary... hmmmmmm

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
I think they would go with OS XI, rather then toss in additional numbers... Just thinking about it... OS ten eleven.... sounds like it should be OS 1011... wonder what that means in binary... hmmmmmm

Great...as if hearing "O S Ex" wasn't bad enough. Now it'll be "O S Ex Eye"...:rolleyes:

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU


Great...as if hearing "O S Ex" wasn't bad enough. Now it'll be "O S Ex Eye"...:rolleyes:

That's nowhere near as bad as windblows heXPee... :D

[mcrain]

Ginger : Segue :: Jaguar : ?

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by mcrain
Ginger : Segue :: Jaguar : ?

Exactly...guess we'll find out at MWNY, or shortly thereafter.

[Hemingray]

For future versions after 10, I have a feeling they'd go either:

MacOS X 11.0 (most likely) or MacOS X 2.0 (less likely)

Judging from their current way of displaying the version number.

[McFreggle]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
Could they be jumping from OS X, to OS XI?? Just a stray thought.

no way

[Geert]

Or they will jump to names instead of number.
Mac OS X Jaguar.
Mac OS X Cheetah.
Mac OS X Tiger.
Mac OS X Steve.
.....

[Zenith]

uhm... Jaguar = 10.5?

I have Jaguar installed and in the system preferences' startup disk it says 10.2. But that's the only place i've seen that number... Maybe Apple will rename it during the development. It's not even at an alpha stage so we'll just have to wait to see what happens.

[aafuss1]

I use Windows 9.x- just to show how companies can skip version numbers:

4.0-95
4.1 98/98se
4.9 ME

[crassusad44]

Originally posted by aafuss1
I use Windows 9.x- just to show how companies can skip version numbers:

4.0-95
4.1 98/98se
4.9 ME

Actually, with Microsoft it's more like:

4.0.7834 -> 95
4.1.9838 -> 98
4.9.7373 -> ME

M$ version numbering is extreme! But with all those bug pathes, I guess they're nesessary :p

[mc68k]

Originally posted by Taft
This begs the question, what are they going to call the next major release of OS X?? And more importantly, what are they going to charge for it???

I think if we look back at the history of Apple OS naming we can get a better idea of what to expect. My analysis will cover 6-X which is what I'm the most familiar with and are most relevant.

These OS's went like this:

-End of Old-
•6.0x
-Start of New-
•7.0x, 7.1x
•7.5x, 7.6x
•8.0x, 8.1x
•8.5x, 8.6x
•9.0x, 9.1x
•9.2x
-NeXT-
•10.0x, 10.1x
•?

As you can see, when Apple comes out with a radically new idea, they cange it to x.0x which is basically a public beta. Later, after they have fixed bugs, they come out with x.1x which is the first real version influenced by the users.

Apple has come out with some ideas that are not radical enough to warrant a new version, but enough to break the x.1.x initial build. The programmers are comfortable enough to develop something with confidence. For these recent OSs it has been called x.5.x.

If you look closely, you can se a trend. The only new OS to break this pattern was 9.2 which shipped with the Quicksilvers. I think at this point, Apple had made their mind to focus most of their develpoment efforts to the NeXT based X and leave any radical ideas to this new OS— hence no x.5.x.

Their naming conventions have made sense and have been consistent. I think that if this trend continues with this New World OS, then the next logical step would be 10.5. This is probably the reason why Apple got pissed at the people who have been calling it 10.2. If they weren't to change it, they wouldn't have spent so much effort to quell these rumors. They basicaly said, "Leave the naming to us on this one, it'll be important".

The features (which we all know by now) are more than enough to warrant a major OS version # upgrade. Apple's programmers seem to be comfortable with X and have really cranked out some quality material.

Anything other than X will have to wait. Apple will have to come up with something clever. X is within most Unix nomenclature, and they'll have to keep it pure X. I don't see them calling it XI, they'd probably call it X v11 or something completely different.

As for price, Apple has traditionally made users pay for the x.5.x. This is now the "base" for future development, not x.1.x. Also, previous users of the same OS version had to pay, but get a break since they have paid before. But it's not free since there was enough develpoment to warrant a major version # change.

For people who want the whole thing, they'll have to pay the same as it costs now. My estimates: full will stay at $129 upgrade will be roughly half— say $60-70 range.

Good catch, Taft. I wouldn't have thought of anything but 10.2 since everyone's been spewing that number without giving much thought to history.

[aafuss1]

On Windows- I have 4.10.2222A, and most version number are like x.0,x.01-not like x.0.1. So Mac OS 9.2.2 would be 9.22 to a PC user.

[Beej]

I don't care what they call Jagwire, as long as I get all those extra features I've seen around the place.

A joke for the Aussies who float around these forums:
What if they call OS 11, "OS 2X"? OS 12 would become "OS 3X," and then we'd have "OS 4X"! He he he... :D

(4X is an Australian beer, for all you non-Aussies.)

[peterjhill]

I could see them charging for Jaguar, thus going to 10.5. Just like Microsoft likes to release no OS's to bring in more revenue, there are alot of people that will purchase Jaguar (like me).

Of course with my current machine being only 4 days old, it would suck to have to pay for an OS upgrade 3 months after getting my new machine.

BTW, has anyone actually been able to use those upgrade coupons? Does Applecare defray the cost of on OS upgrade?

I will have to look into that. (of course I would get work to pay for it anyway, but hey, it's still money)

[j763]

Maybe it will be called OS 4X, beej... It would explain SJ's pronounciation at least.

[Ensign Paris]

Originally posted by Beej
I don't care what they call Jagwire, as long as I get all those extra features I've seen around the place.

A joke for the Aussies who float around these forums:
What if they call OS 11, "OS 2X"? OS 12 would become "OS 3X," and then we'd have "OS 4X"! He he he... :D

(4X is an Australian beer, for all you non-Aussies.)

We have XXXX in England, its is australian but I don't think I have ever heard it called 4X.

Ensign

[Beej]

Originally posted by Ensign Paris


We have XXXX in England, its is australian but I don't think I have ever heard it called 4X.

Ensign What, do you guys call it "ex ex ex ex"? That's gotta be hard at the end of the night... "a pot of ex exsh eshx eschx, pleash..."

Heh :)

[The Bender]

Originally posted by Beej
What, do you guys call it "ex ex ex ex"? That's gotta be hard at the end of the night... "a pot of ex exsh eshx eschx, pleash..."

Heh :)

It most certainly is called "4X" in the UK, at least it was up to 5 years ago when The Bender left. Mind you, it tastes like rats' wee, so I wouldn't recommend naming an OS after it.

"I wouldn't give a Castlemaine 4X for anything else", as I remember...

[Taft]

Originally posted by mc68k


These OS's went like this:

-End of Old-
•6.0x
-Start of New-
•7.0x, 7.1x
•7.5x, 7.6x
•8.0x, 8.1x
•8.5x, 8.6x
•9.0x, 9.1x
•9.2x
-NeXT-
•10.0x, 10.1x
•?


Good point looking at the history. Given the past OS releases, my bet is on 10.5. They can charge more on this one, I think. I mean who here that is using X wouldn't upgrade to Jaguar?? I sure will.

Taft

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by The Bender


It most certainly is called "4X" in the UK, at least it was up to 5 years ago when The Bender left. Mind you, it tastes like rats' wee, so I wouldn't recommend naming an OS after it.

"I wouldn't give a Castlemaine 4X for anything else", as I remember...

That makes sense for windblows xpee. It should be named 4x-pee. :D

[Hemingray]

Here's a little more fuel for the fire. This picture is from ThinkSecret, and notice it shows no version number, only "Version (pre-release)":

The build shown is 6C35, the first developer preview.

[mc68k]

Originally posted by Hemingray
The build shown is 6C35, the first developer preview.

I think the 6XXX points to it being named 10.5, that is, if they follow suit with thier previous OS naming conventions.

4XXX->5XXX->6XXX
--
10.0.x->10.1.x->10.5.x (not 10.2)

[mac15]

maybe they thought different cause I have version 6b11 and its 10.2
and I bet its 10.2 thought
cause steve said mac os x would take apple into the next decade

[mc68k]

Originally posted by mac15
maybe they thought different cause I have version 6b11 and its 10.2
and I bet its 10.2 thought
cause steve said mac os x would take apple into the next decade
The Classic Mac OS sustained Apple for well over a decade, but changed numbers from 1-9.2.2. That means that X can stay X, but be X v1X.Xx IMO.