PDA

View Full Version : When does OS X end and OS XI begin?




WiiDSmoker
Mar 1, 2012, 06:32 PM
Does anyone here think that Mountain Lion is the last major update to OS X or could there be another cat?

Where does OS XI come in to play?



roadbloc
Mar 1, 2012, 06:34 PM
After 10.9 assumingly.

Brad9893
Mar 1, 2012, 06:35 PM
They could just continue on...10.10, 10.11, etc.

grapes911
Mar 1, 2012, 06:43 PM
I don't think we are going to see OS 11 until Apple decides to rewrite their OS again. I think OS X is here to stay for a long time. I've been wrong before though.

KnightWRX
Mar 1, 2012, 06:46 PM
I don't think we are going to see OS 11 until Apple decides to rewrite their OS again. I think OS X is here to stay for a long time. I've been wrong before though.

Versions only have has much meaning as the vendor puts into them. Mac OS 8 was not a complete rewrite of System 7.6. And Mac OS 9 wasn't a complete rewrite of Mac OS 8.1.

So really, if tomorrow Apple decided that they released OS X 11.0, still call it OS X and just change the major version number, there's nothing we can really say.

grapes911
Mar 1, 2012, 06:52 PM
Versions only have has much meaning as the vendor puts into them. Mac OS 8 was not a complete rewrite of System 7.6. And Mac OS 9 wasn't a complete rewrite of Mac OS 8.1.

So really, if tomorrow Apple decided that they released OS X 11.0, still call it OS X and just change the major version number, there's nothing we can really say.

You are correct, but when Apple completely rewrote their operating system that was a hugh change. They really made the change stand out by switching from numbers to the letter X (yes, it's still a number, I know), and started using cats for code names (actually this came later and was back filled). They started a trend.

OS X has been around so long now, I can't see them going to OS 11 or XI unless there is a huge update to the OS. It would have to be something big.

Schtumple
Mar 1, 2012, 07:03 PM
I think we'll only see the next OS when OSX has completely served it's time, at the moment it's in it's prime, sales of Apples notebooks and desktops are at the highest they've ever been, yes iOS devices have eclipsed that, but that's more because they're mostly of a different purpose/cheaper, by the time the next Mac OS comes along it'll probably be a bit overdue, or way ahead of it's time, who knows, maybe iOS is that OS, time will tell.

talmy
Mar 1, 2012, 07:05 PM
What's in a name? That which we call OS XI by any other name would smell as sweet.
:)

MisterMe
Mar 1, 2012, 07:21 PM
Does anyone here think that Mountain Lion is the last major update to OS X or could there be another cat?

Where does OS XI come in to play?Software version numbers are not necessarily decimal. Nobody here has a clue about the name of Apple's next OS or the new name of Apple's current OS. If there is an Apple employee here who knows Apple's plans, then he/she cannot and will not even hint that this knowledge is within him/her.

This is what I know and what I believe:

When Apple introduced MacOS X, it stated that MacOS X would be the basis of its OS for the next twenty years. We have at least nine years to go. (I am convinced that we have more than that.)
Since Apple introduced MacOS X, it has doubled-down on UNIX. For example, it acquired CUPS back in 2007. It graduated from POSIX-compliance to genuine UNIX certification.
Apple is increasing its brand emphasis on "OS X." It is doing this at the same time that it has accelerated the production of new point releases. Consider this MacOS X 10.4 Tiger reigned for 2.5 years. We are on the verge of the introduction of OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion. In 2.5 years after Mountain Lion's debut, we expect to be using the successor to OS X 10.9.
We know that Steve Jobs Apple with a Five-Year Roadmap for its product development. I am convinced the plans for OS X beyond 10.9 have already been outlined.
It does not make sense to raise the profile of "OS X" only to replace it two years later. I believe that the OS that follows OS X 10.9 will be either OS X 10.10 or OS X 11. I do not believe that we will ever see OS XI.

nate13
Mar 1, 2012, 07:26 PM
By that time the mobile OS and the desktop OS will be one and the same, So I'd guess it'd be called iOS 8?

maflynn
Mar 1, 2012, 07:38 PM
I don't think we are going to see OS 11 until Apple decides to rewrite their OS again. I think OS X is here to stay for a long time. I've been wrong before though.

The difference between then and now is that they had to rewrite the OS, system 7, OS8 and OS9 were just not designed to handle the demands of modern computing (pre-emptive multitasking, better memory management etc). With OSX, I don't see apple needing to rewrite the operating system.

Lesser Evets
Mar 12, 2012, 07:28 PM
OSX is a catchy name. OSXI is fairly crap. From a marketing standpoint, it will go to 10.11 before it goes to XI. Unless they further the OS in some way that sets it apart from OSX.

Since the current portables are becoming the computers of "tomorrow", I doubt OSX will ever slip into OSXI. Chances are great to see OSX go through the decade and then disappear with current computing formats at Apple. Based on the trends and speculation, "pro" macs and high-powered computers will become more of a sub-niche market, and now that the visionary of Apple is in the dirt, the bean-counters will shortly reign: everything will be a mere profit, no matter what the quality. So the cheaper/smaller versions will be king and OSX will die with the machines it used to work.

pdjudd
Mar 12, 2012, 08:48 PM
OSX is a catchy name. OSXI is fairly crap. From a marketing standpoint, it will go to 10.11 before it goes to XI. .

Heck they don’t even need to go to XI - as stated before, version numbering isn’t necessarily a decimal. There are tons of versions of software that goes to x.11 or whatever. Heck we have had versions of OSX where the minor updates (the x.y.z version) went above 9 without triggering a .y release. Apple could release 10.13 and go on from there until the cows come home for all we know.

Yumunum
Mar 12, 2012, 08:53 PM
By that time the mobile OS and the desktop OS will be one and the same, So I'd guess it'd be called iOS 8?

Yeah... Not only will portable devices have the power (heck, we already do), but feature-wise, both OSs are getting more alike. We'll hit a point where it might be pointless to keep them separate.

David085
Mar 12, 2012, 09:25 PM
Not for a long while probably, They might continue OS X from 9 to 10.10, 10.11, etc.

TSE
Mar 12, 2012, 09:52 PM
I remember Steve Jobs saying that Mac OS X would last Apple a whole decade.

MisterMe
Mar 12, 2012, 10:35 PM
I remember Steve Jobs saying that Mac OS X would last Apple a whole decade.No, he said MacOS X would be the basis of Apple's operating system for 20 years. We have nearly a decade to go before the first 20 years ends.

... Chances are great to see OSX go through the decade and then disappear with current computing formats at Apple. Based on the trends and speculation, "pro" macs and high-powered computers will become more of a sub-niche market, and now that the visionary of Apple is in the dirt, the bean-counters will shortly reign: everything will be a mere profit, no matter what the quality. So the cheaper/smaller versions will be king and OSX will die with the machines it used to work.Where did you get this nonsense? As much as I revere Steve Jobs, he was not the only visionary at Apple. As for the rest of this stream of consciousness, what can I say? OS X is UNIX-based. The dreaded iOS is OS X with a [slightly] different UI. Rather than abandoning UNIX for something else, Apple had doubled-down on UNIX. If Apple had any plans to abandon UNIX for something else, then we would be reading about this wonderous new OS in computer science research journals, general-interest computer publications, and every computer fan site on the Web.

pgiguere1
Mar 14, 2012, 06:15 PM
When they will make it compatible both with x86 and ARM CPUs I guess.

GroundLoop
Mar 14, 2012, 06:20 PM
There will be no OS XI. Apple will fade out of the computer business, and only sell iPads/iPhones. So OS XI is truly iOS.

GL

MattInOz
Mar 14, 2012, 06:44 PM
You are correct, but when Apple completely rewrote their operating system that was a hugh change. They really made the change stand out by switching from numbers to the letter X (yes, it's still a number, I know), and started using cats for code names (actually this came later and was back filled). They started a trend.

OS X has been around so long now, I can't see them going to OS 11 or XI unless there is a huge update to the OS. It would have to be something big.

Well the big difference between iOS and OS X is the User Interaction. Almost all the branding is about the user interaction. A change in the first number traditionally means a shift in the Kernel that breaks some long standing legacy.

If Apple gets to the point they want to shift the kernel and version number bumps to 11.0 If there is no big change in user interaction then i see no reason not to keep OS X as the public brand.

I think Apple might be moving towards one of those shifts in a couple of years. De-tangling the BSD layer, Kernel and file system but none of that will change the main interaction other than making it snappier.

Gemütlichkeit
Mar 14, 2012, 08:31 PM
There won't be an OS XI

It will most likely be some form of iOS for Mac.

throAU
Mar 14, 2012, 09:41 PM
I don't think we are going to see OS 11 until Apple decides to rewrite their OS again. I think OS X is here to stay for a long time. I've been wrong before though.

Agreed with this.

I suspect we'll never see OS XI, it will be called something else.

Probably "iOS"

:D


edit:
I'm actually serious. iOS will gain OS X like capabilities, and OS X will gain more touch interfaces.

Somewhere in the middle, the two will merge and become a unified OS again. I suspect within 3-5 years, as the CPU and memory in phones becomes on par with what OS X currently requires.

I don't think it will be a bad thing - basing fears on the current implementation of iOS being limited is imho a little premature.

MisterMe
Mar 14, 2012, 11:05 PM
...

Probably "iOS"

...Oh, brother:rolleyes: iOS is Apple's port of its OS for mobile devices. OS X is Apple's port of its OS for general-purpose computers and servers. There is simply no case for unifying iOS with OS X. If there were, then they would be unified now. In fact, they never would have been separated in the first place.

throAU
Mar 14, 2012, 11:10 PM
Oh, brother:rolleyes: iOS is Apple's port of its OS for mobile devices. OS X is Apple's port of its OS for general-purpose computers and servers. There is simply no case for unifying iOS with OS X. If there were, then they would be unified now. In fact, they never would have been separated in the first place.

We'll see who's right come 2015 I guess.

They would have been separated before due to resource requirements, and also to enable apple to gradually phase touch into OS X and OS X features into mobile devices as capability of said devices improves.

GenesisST
Mar 15, 2012, 08:16 PM
Maybe they'll go with dogs

Mac OS XI 11.0 "Husky"

MattInOz
Mar 15, 2012, 09:24 PM
We'll see who's right come 2015 I guess.

They would have been separated before due to resource requirements, and also to enable apple to gradually phase touch into OS X and OS X features into mobile devices as capability of said devices improves.

By 2015 sure Touch vs Keyboard might have become very fuzzy but another divide that ensures strong difference between iOS and OS X will become front and centre*. Their not going to produce a middle ground. Middle grounds lead the sort un-focused mess Apple was in the "Beleaguered" Days.

*The divide is really sitting vs standing which isn't going to change even if both have touch, keyboard, voice it'll always override how you implement those things.

throAU
Mar 15, 2012, 10:47 PM
^^ oh i agree.

However, I believe we'll end up with iPads, etc that can pair to OS X style interface devices (they kinda already can) to run OS X style apps - on a big screen via Airplay for example), and the iOS sandboxing, etc is already coming to OS X.

The differences between the two platforms are going to narrow to the point where a single OS will be on both devices, providing both interface styles depending on the input device(s) currently in use.

That's how I see it in any case - for most people, the traditional "laptop" or even "desktop" computer is eventually going to go away, and be replaced by something like an iPad (in terms of form factor, with memory/cpu/gpu performance on steroids) that can be used both on the go, and with desktop style peripherals for doing more intensive work when you return to your desk.

Of course there will always be specialized workloads that require something like a Mac Pro, but the vast majority of users simply don't (and in a few years especially, won't) need the horsepower that a non-tablet device provides.

The real "killer app" for this is going to be that users can just work on the single device, when they leave home/work, simply pick up a tablet (wireless connectivity to mouse/keyboard/trackpad/display/etc - maybe unplug the charger if and inductive charging pad isn't available) and leave with all of their apps/data available on the device.

No need to worry about "do i have app X on this?" to continue working, the UI will simply shift to touch/tablet mode and you'll be able to carry on. Your data will automatically save to either iCloud or the corporate equivalent (future apple corporate "private icloud in a box" product) as required.

Maybe my time estimate is off, but I'm pretty sure this is how things are going to end up in the near future. Just as the laptop is killing the desktop, and the desktop killed dumb terminals hanging off a mainframe, the tablet will kill the laptop... it's just a matter of time.

Shepphard
Mar 16, 2012, 04:16 AM
I personally think it's pretty obvious that Apple wants to phase OS X into iOS and vice versa. OS X got some of the features from the iOS in OS X Lion and will get even more features in OS X Mountain Lion. It's sure that this transition from 2 to 1 operating System is going to be really huge step and won't come anytime soon because iOS and OS X are still really far apart one from another, but still, it would be a logical choice. For the moment, Apple is coding on 2 (3 if you count the OS X Server version) different OS's, so you have 2 different instances for coding, debugging, developing etc. I think it would be much easier just working on one OS for all the devices.

But as I said, it's not going to happen anytime soon, but the transition, if it happens, may happen in 10 years or so... Still a lot of time to spread rumors about it ;)

ADMProducer
Mar 16, 2012, 06:42 AM
It's not even pronounced Mac OS "Ex". X is the roman numeral for 10, it is pronounced Mac OS 10. Therefore Mac OS XI will be Mac OS 11. Simple, as.

I see no problem in calling it that. But since iPhone OS was renamed iOS, I can see Mac being branded as just Mac OS.

Shepphard
Mar 16, 2012, 07:03 AM
But since iPhone OS was renamed iOS, I can see Mac being branded as just Mac OS.

Hmm, but doesn't the Developers Build of ML say "OS X"? I think they phased out the "Mac" part, not the "X" part... maybe I'm wrong and it's other way round, but I think it will only read "OS X" in ML and future updates...

Edit: The Title of this Forum is "OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion", while the other start with Mac... so, no "Mac OS" I think :)

ADMProducer
Mar 16, 2012, 07:08 AM
Hmm, but doesn't the Developers Build of ML say "OS X"? I think they phased out the "Mac" part, not the "X" part... maybe I'm wrong and it's other way round, but I think it will only read "OS X" in ML and future updates...

No, it will stay the same for ML. But when we move to XI, I think it will be just Mac OS.

Shepphard
Mar 16, 2012, 07:18 AM
No, it will stay the same for ML. But when we move to XI, I think it will be just Mac OS.

http://www.macrumors.com/2012/02/16/apple-officially-drops-mac-name-from-os-x-mountain-lion/

You sure? This article also gives the Answer to the Thread in some form, meaning that they might put together iOS and OS X

MisterMe
Mar 16, 2012, 09:27 AM
No, it will stay the same for ML. But when we move to XI, I think it will be just Mac OS.These discussions tend to be devoid of facts and logic. Even so, it helps to inject facts and logic anyway:

The operating system commonly called "MacOS 9" is MacOS. There is very little of MacOS in OS X. It would make no sense for Apple to revert to the old name.
The top marketing feature of MacOS X has been the "X." Since MacOS X 10.0, it has been featured more prominently than the cats. With MacOS X 10.7, the word Mac has been de-emphasized. With OS X 10.8, Mac disappears from the name. The "X" goes on.
Apple's mobile OS has never had a significant marketing push. Only a tiny fraction of mobile device users have ever purchased it separately. iOS is its third name. When the iPhone was introduced, it was OS X. Apple renamed it iPhone OS for a couple of versions. Now, it is iOS. Of the three names, the one that was featured most prominently was OS X.

Mad Mac Maniac
Mar 17, 2012, 02:02 PM
I think everyone is in agreement that OS X will live on until there is some fundamental change in the way the OS functions. To the level of change that windows has gone through with the Metro interface. So the real question is how much longer can Apple keep adding to the current implementation of the OS and how could Apple change the way that the OS functions in the future.

Based on the fact that Apple just announced yearly updates to OS X, I think they will continue with small iterative updates for at least a few years, continuing to bring iCloud and iOS style updates to OS X. Oh and Siri.

But that being said, I'm confident that Apple is actively researching the best way to change the OS in a major way. Supposedly Windows 8 has been worked on since before Vista came out 5-6 years ago. So I think we will see some revolutionary changes to the OS in around 4-5 years. Will it be a cohesive hybrid of OS X and iOS? Will it be a completely new way to integrate touch and Mac? Will it remain a completely separate entity from iOS? We can only speculate about these things...

10.8 and iOS6 2012
10.9 and iOS7 2013
10.10 and iOS8 2014
10.11 and iOS9 2015
Time for change. Maybe iOS X?

That's my prediction.

Side Note: Whenever the naming scheme changes I would like for the OS's to be named after birds of prey. peregrine falcon, bald eagle, hawk, osprey, snowy owl, etc.

Pentad
Mar 17, 2012, 03:49 PM
Oh, brother:rolleyes: iOS is Apple's port of its OS for mobile devices. OS X is Apple's port of its OS for general-purpose computers and servers. There is simply no case for unifying iOS with OS X. If there were, then they would be unified now. In fact, they never would have been separated in the first place.

One should check their facts before rolling their eyes...;)

OS X is an evolution of the technologies that NeXT pioneered with Steve Jobs. It is a UNIX OS with modern features running with the MACH kernel. MacOS 1.0 through 9.x have very little in common with OS X and in many way were crap (fragmented memory problems, co-op multitasking, no memory protection, I could go on...).

iOS (actually iPhoneOS at the beginning) is a derivative of Mac OS X (not a port). Mac OS X is their foundation OS (again, not a port).


If I had to guess I would say that the name OS X will remain. However, I expect iOS to be the dominant focus for their R&D given how much money it has generated for them. They dominate the consumer market so I expect their OS to favor this market.

Cheers!
-P

lotones
Mar 19, 2012, 02:03 AM
It's not even pronounced Mac OS "Ex". X is the roman numeral for 10, it is pronounced Mac OS 10. Therefore Mac OS XI will be Mac OS 11. Simple, as.

I see no problem in calling it that. But since iPhone OS was renamed iOS, I can see Mac being branded as just Mac OS.

Not just iOS or Mac OS.

Apple OS

One OS to rule them all.

Peace
Mar 19, 2012, 02:09 AM
IOS is going to be gone pretty soon too.

I can see Apple having one OS for both computer and mobile devices similar to Microsofts new naming scheme of Windows 8.

Soon we will see OSX and OSX mobile.

MisterMe
Mar 19, 2012, 09:12 AM
...

OS X is an evolution of the technologies that NeXT pioneered with Steve Jobs. It is a UNIX OS with modern features running with the MACH kernel. MacOS 1.0 through 9.x have very little in common with OS X and in many way were crap (fragmented memory problems, co-op multitasking, no memory protection, I could go on...).

...What in God's name are you rambling on about? Read my Post No. 33--the one just two posts before the incoherent nonsense that is Post No. 35. If you don't understand it the first time, then read it again until you do.

ajvizzgamer101
Mar 19, 2012, 10:14 AM
I think iOS is OS 11.

Mac32
Mar 19, 2012, 01:24 PM
After OSX 10.9, Apple could just start to use the name OS X '14/2014 (like what they do with their Apple Works suite), with biannual updates or whatever.
OS X is a mature and well working OS now, but let us not forget the danger that Apple developers starts adding lots of annoying "features" that will actually detract from the previously streamlined user interface (ie. Snow Leopard to Lion) - in the quest for continuing innovation. Still Apple could improve graphics support and Finder.
However, AirPlay is a very useful new feature with 10.8.

MisterMe
Mar 19, 2012, 04:49 PM
After OSX 10.9, Apple could just start to use the name OS X '14/2014 (like what they do with their Apple Works suite), ...What are you talking about? The last version of AppleWorks was AppleWorks 6.2.9. This was hardly a novel versioning scheme.

jian
Mar 19, 2012, 06:01 PM
Steve Jobs said OS X set Apple up for the next 20 years when he introduced OS X, so 9 more years?

Kilamite
Mar 19, 2012, 06:29 PM
When Apple announced Mountain Lion, they said they'd start a new yearly cycle on OS X, the same yearly cycle that iOS sees.

Mountain Lion will be the last release under the alias "OS X". From then on, iOS will replace OS X as the name, and will be on the exact same cycle as iOS is now. iOS will run on your Mac, iPad, iPhone and iPod touch.

However, just because OS X will be called iOS, doesn't mean it'll lose all of its OS X appearance.

iOS 6 won't be a significant upgrade this year, but iOS 7 will. iOS 7 will get rid of the application grid that is the current user interface and introduce likes of widgets and so on. iOS 7 will also be the first release for the Macintosh.

From then on, each iOS release will be yearly and will be released for the Mac, iPad, iPhone and iPod touch at the same time.

iOS 7 will be released summer 2013, and it'll be a huge merge of OS X and iOS in terms of user interface.

MattInOz
Mar 19, 2012, 07:34 PM
Steve Jobs said OS X set Apple up for the next 20 years when he introduced OS X, so 9 more years?

Then they really need to be working on what comes next...
9 years is not a lot of time to make a new mature OS stable enough for consumer deployment, with a wealth of software ready to go.

pdjudd
Mar 19, 2012, 08:12 PM
What are you talking about? The last version of AppleWorks was AppleWorks 6.2.9. This was hardly a novel versioning scheme.

I think he is talking about the iWork suite, not the discontented AppleWorks Suite.

throAU
Mar 19, 2012, 08:20 PM
. It's sure that this transition from 2 to 1 operating System is going to be really huge step and won't come anytime soon because iOS and OS X are still really far apart one from another,


You don't realise just how close the two operating systems are.

The kernel is the same
Many of the core foundation APIs are the same or very similar.

The major differences are in the UI layer, and this is being merged.

iOS started out as OS X-lite, going back to a more complete OS X is not going to be difficult.


The iPhone/iPad emulator actually runs iOS applications using OS X frameworks. There are warnings in the developer documentation about this, as it is actually possible to code an "OS X" iOS application that will work in the emulator, but not on the device due to subtle differences in implementation in the libraries the emulator uses, that are slightly tweaked on iOS.

(i'm a hobbyist "developer" :D)

MisterMe
Mar 19, 2012, 11:07 PM
Then they really need to be working on what comes next...
9 years is not a lot of time to make a new mature OS stable enough for consumer deployment, with a wealth of software ready to go.Only the most narrow-minded person would interpret Steve Jobs's declaration that MacOS X would be the basis of Apple's operating system for the next 20 years as some sort of time limit.

MacOS X is UNIX-based. UNIX has been around for about 40 years with origins going back even earlier. Don't be surprised to see a UNIX-based Apple operating system at the UNIX Centennial.

Zwhaler
Mar 20, 2012, 01:53 AM
Wouldn't they just call it OS 11 and not OS XI? Even though they stand for the same thing, it went up to OS 9 then OS X, so it could just go back to using regular numbers.

MattInOz
Mar 20, 2012, 04:57 AM
Only the most narrow-minded person would interpret Steve Jobs's declaration that MacOS X would be the basis of Apple's operating system for the next 20 years as some sort of time limit.

MacOS X is UNIX-based. UNIX has been around for about 40 years with origins going back even earlier. Don't be surprised to see a UNIX-based Apple operating system at the UNIX Centennial.

While it's impressive that Apple has UNIX certification(till August at least) of their own Mash-up* of Mach Kernel and BSD services layer that is no guarantee that those Low levels of OS X will continue to serve well as a base for another few decades of modern OS. Maybe 20 years is an artificial time limit but there will be a time they need to make big significant changes at the low level.

drjsway
Mar 20, 2012, 05:06 AM
You don't realise just how close the two operating systems are.

The kernel is the same
Many of the core foundation APIs are the same or very similar.

The major differences are in the UI layer, and this is being merged.

iOS started out as OS X-lite, going back to a more complete OS X is not going to be difficult.


The iPhone/iPad emulator actually runs iOS applications using OS X frameworks. There are warnings in the developer documentation about this, as it is actually possible to code an "OS X" iOS application that will work in the emulator, but not on the device due to subtle differences in implementation in the libraries the emulator uses, that are slightly tweaked on iOS.

(i'm a hobbyist "developer" :D)

This makes a lot of sense. With Windows 8 running on PCs and tablets, Apple can't get away with not merging.

KnightWRX
Mar 20, 2012, 05:33 AM
When Apple announced Mountain Lion, they said they'd start a new yearly cycle on OS X, the same yearly cycle that iOS sees.

Mountain Lion will be the last release under the alias "OS X". From then on, iOS will replace OS X as the name, and will be on the exact same cycle as iOS is now. iOS will run on your Mac, iPad, iPhone and iPod touch.

However, just because OS X will be called iOS, doesn't mean it'll lose all of its OS X appearance.

iOS 6 won't be a significant upgrade this year, but iOS 7 will. iOS 7 will get rid of the application grid that is the current user interface and introduce likes of widgets and so on. iOS 7 will also be the first release for the Macintosh.

From then on, each iOS release will be yearly and will be released for the Mac, iPad, iPhone and iPod touch at the same time.

iOS 7 will be released summer 2013, and it'll be a huge merge of OS X and iOS in terms of user interface.

Bullcrap.

iOS on iPad/iPhone/iPod Touch will keep on using SpringBoard as a UI and UIKit as its UI widget framework. OS X, whatever it's called will keep on using Finder as a UI and AppKit as its widget set.

The systems are already merged people. They have always been merged. The differences are there for a reason and they'll stay there for a reason.

I don't know why I bother anymore. Bunch of "end of world" propagandists just want to piss the neophyte users that don't know any better.

While it's impressive that Apple has UNIX certification(till August at least) of their own Mash-up* of Mach Kernel and BSD services layer

How is that impressive ? What do you think UNIX is exactly ? It's always been a mash-up of Kernels and user-space utilities, applications and APIs. Some made by HP, some by IBM, some by Sun Microsystems some by the community before they were known as the open source community (mostly, universities like Carnegie Mellon, Berkeley, MIT, etc..), some made by other players.

Not all UNIX systems derive their code or still use much of the old Bell Labs (AT&T) code base that is known as SysV (and its predecessors).

The UNIX certification process is simply a compatibility test suite for a specification known as the SUS (Single Unix Specification) that tests adherence to this specification. You don't need any actual Ken Thompson code, you just need to be compatible to be called UNIX.

that is no guarantee that those Low levels of OS X will continue to serve well as a base for another few decades of modern OS. Maybe 20 years is an artificial time limit but there will be a time they need to make big significant changes at the low level.

But there have not been many advances at the low level. The thing is, it's mature, solid and proven. Just like car manufacturers aren't stepping over themselves to reinvent the wheel, why would someone reinvent OSes all over again ? Until there's a big paradigm shift in computing to something we haven't seen, there is just no incentive at all for Apple to rewrite the lower levels of the OS. Otherwise, microkernels, realtime schedulers, NUMA architecture, name it, it can all be done with UNIX if Apple wants to.

The move to NeXTStep as the basis for OS X was a genius move by Apple. The old system just didn't have the room to grow anymore. Same with Microsoft moving to NT. They are now set until the next big thing comes along and redefines computing like UNIX did in 1972 (yes, I know they started earlier on the project, following Bell Labs' withdrawal from the MULTICS project).

But hey, what do I know about this stuff ?

KnightWRX
Mar 20, 2012, 05:44 AM
double.

Kilamite
Mar 20, 2012, 07:16 AM
The systems are already merged people. They have always been merged. The differences are there for a reason and they'll stay there for a reason.

It'll purely be marketing. I never said OS X was going to die and suddenly we'd have a blown up iOS filling our screens. We'd have iOS for the Mac, iPad and iPhone, but the Mac version, like I said in my post, won't differ much from OS X right now, only with a few more "iOS like" enhancements (that we are seeing now with ML, such as notifications etc).

Maybe "huge merge of user interfaces" wasn't the best of words, but the two OSs will slowly become one soon enough, as we've seen, with both taking interface advancements from each other.

iOS 7 for the Mac will be more iOS like and less OS X like, but it'll really be for marketing more than anything. Same release cycle. I'm not saying that I think it would be a good thing either, I'm just saying my predictions, not my wishes.

You believe that in 1.5 years time when Apple supposedly releases iOS 7, they'll still be using the same springboard GUI, especially on the iPad?

KnightWRX
Mar 20, 2012, 07:29 AM
It'll purely be marketing. I never said OS X was going to die and suddenly we'd have a blown up iOS filling our screens. We'd have iOS for the Mac, iPad and iPhone, but the Mac version, like I said in my post, won't differ much from OS X right now, only with a few more "iOS like" enhancements (that we are seeing now with ML, such as notifications etc).

OS X is already iOS for the Mac. That is what I am saying. iOS is already OS X for iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch. That is what I am saying.

The systems already don't differ much. Again : UIKit/Springboard vs AppKit/Finder.

Maybe "huge merge of user interfaces" wasn't the best of words, but the two OSs will slowly become one soon enough, as we've seen, with both taking interface advancements from each other.

[QUOTE=Kilamite;14570056]iOS 7 for the Mac will be more iOS like and less OS X like, but it'll really be for marketing more than anything.

Again, how can it be so without either moving AppKit/Finder to iOS devices or moving Springboard/UIKit to OS X ?

The UIs are different because the input paradigms are different.

Again, don't know why I bother, you obviously don't know about how the systems are built, you're just talking about a "what I see is totally different!" perspective, completly ignoring the huge hulking mass of ice under the water.

Kilamite
Mar 20, 2012, 08:02 AM
OS X is already iOS for the Mac. That is what I am saying. iOS is already OS X for iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch. That is what I am saying.

The systems already don't differ much. Again : UIKit/Springboard vs AppKit/Finder.

Again, how can it be so without either moving AppKit/Finder to iOS devices or moving Springboard/UIKit to OS X ?

The UIs are different because the input paradigms are different.

Again, don't know why I bother, you obviously don't know about how the systems are built, you're just talking about a "what I see is totally different!" perspective, completly ignoring the huge hulking mass of ice under the water.

MARKETING.

I know iOS is essentially just OS X, Jobs introduced it that way with the iPhone launch. I'm talking about marketing. OS X will become iOS as a name.

But they'll merge a few other user interface things too. Yes, one is touch based, one is keyboard/mouse based, but gestures for notifications on the ML show that Apple is taking a lot of cues from iOS and moving them to OS X.

Apple has said OS X is on a yearly cycle. iOS is also on a yearly cycle. With OS X dropping the Mac name, and getting more iOS features, from a marketing perspective, it would make more sense to just drop OS X and call it iOS instead.

Why have a different OS name for your laptop and tablets? It makes them appear fragmented. Remember, this is mainly just for marketing, before you start crying me a river about how I don't understand how systems are built.

pdjudd
Mar 20, 2012, 08:29 AM
Marketing two completley different things (visually) as the same thing rarely does well - often times it just leads to consumer confusion when it becomes how obviously different things are.

OSX and iOS share several similarities, but they diverge widely in very fundamental ways as KnighWRX points out. Right now marketing them under different names is the best thing since you can link them as a family of devices. Trying to combine names is only going to lead to headaches when people want to buy a certain device and worry about compatibility.

iOS and MacOS are too different to name similarly. That exists on a fundamental level that Apple is very likely not going to change.

MisterMe
Mar 20, 2012, 09:16 AM
While it's impressive that Apple has UNIX certification(till August at least) of their own Mash-up* of Mach Kernel and BSD services layer that is no guarantee that those Low levels of OS X will continue to serve well as a base for another few decades of modern OS. Maybe 20 years is an artificial time limit but there will be a time they need to make big significant changes at the low level.OK. You carry-on as though UNIX is built on pilings--can't move and can't be moved. The UNIX of today is not the UNIX of the 1970s. In another 40 years or 60 years or whatever timeframe you like, UNIX will be the OS of its time.

For the time being, Apple will be one of the major forces moving UNIX to where it needs to go. Check Guarantees? That's a straw man argument. Neither did I say nor did I imply that there are guarantees. That said, Apple has actually doubled-down on UNIX since 2007. Gaining UNIX 03 Certification for Leopard and Snow Leopard were just the tips of icebergs. BTW, UNIX 03 certification is not a "mash-up."

Kilamite
Mar 20, 2012, 09:19 AM
iOS and MacOS are too different to name similarly. That exists on a fundamental level that Apple is very likely not going to change.

Right now they are. But summer 2013, I don't think they'll be too different. The main thing that separates them is Finder/file system.

Windows 8 unifies tablets and laptops. Some may argue the Metro interface isn't great for laptops, and I'm one of them. I think tablets and laptops need separate OSs.

I'm not wanting Apple to unify OS X and iOS, or rename them for marketing reasons, but I'd bet money on them doing just that come summer 2013.

Mad Mac Maniac
Mar 20, 2012, 09:19 AM
MARKETING.

I know iOS is essentially just OS X, Jobs introduced it that way with the iPhone launch. I'm talking about marketing. OS X will become iOS as a name.


I'm speaking as an observer that has no real knowledge of the underpinnings of iOS and OS X and in what ways they are connected and in what ways they aren't.

But at this point in time, I'm inclined to side with Kilamite. I know that would be a hard reality for most die hard Mac fans. So many of them hate the iOSification of OS X. And from a marketing standpoint I agree that it doesn't make sense to call Lion iOS or to call ML iOS... but the 2013 release of OS X will draw even closer to iOS. iOS is Apple's success, their posterchild. OS X helped put Apple on the map, but in over a decade they have stayed under 7% worldwide marketshare. iOS has exploded in such a way that it surprised even Apple. Now they want to bring that success to the Mac however possible. So first they begin bringing design cues. Then they start bringing the apps and notification center. Next year I think they will add some major cross platform effort which allows iOS and OS X to communicate in such a way that it makes sense to market them both as iOS. They will release at the same time and the upgrades will always remain free

Obviously they will still have fundamental differences in how you interact with them and how it functions. But even these will begin to blend and blur throughout the years.

In fact I think iCloud will be a huge help to aid the unification of iOS and OS X.

bjm2660
Mar 20, 2012, 09:43 AM
"I don't always use a PC, but when I do, I prefer OSX"

Of course we could always add dos equis and make it OSXX.

bjm2660
Mar 20, 2012, 10:16 AM
Hey, these are the jokes people...:D

pdjudd
Mar 20, 2012, 10:31 AM
Right now they are. But summer 2013, I don't think they'll be too different. The main thing that separates them is Finder/file system.

I am talking about had fundamental changes though - so much so that you cannot change things in a year. We are talking about things down the basic things like input and file systems (and many other things) and even the application systems (which use different API's) I don't even think they can be entirely merged nor do I think that Apple wants to do that.

If we assume that your position is with basis (which we cannot really do) we are talking about massive changes in a short period of time just for the sake of marketing (of which I have no problem with accepting that Apple is good at). Sorry I just don't see that. That sort of change would take a loong time given many different factors.

At the core OSX and iOS are the same - but they branch off and differ a great deal - so much so that I don't think that they will ever be the same.

Kilamite
Mar 20, 2012, 11:07 AM
I am talking about had fundamental changes though - so much so that you cannot change things in a year. We are talking about things down the basic things like input and file systems (and many other things) and even the application systems (which use different API's) I don't even think they can be entirely merged nor do I think that Apple wants to do that.

If we assume that your position is with basis (which we cannot really do) we are talking about massive changes in a short period of time just for the sake of marketing (of which I have no problem with accepting that Apple is good at). Sorry I just don't see that. That sort of change would take a loong time given many different factors.

At the core OSX and iOS are the same - but they branch off and differ a great deal - so much so that I don't think that they will ever be the same.

Apple is bringing iOS like features to the Mac. I'm not talking about changing the file system, I'm talking about the user interface, and how Apple is bringing things like Notification Centre, Launch Pad, Full Screen apps to the Mac. These are iOS features.

What I mean is that at some point, user interface wise, things will look similar. The Mac will hopefully always have a Finder, though I can imagine it being disabled by default one day.

Renaming OS X to iOS will happen when the major features of iOS are on the Mac. We're getting there - Mac App Store, Full Screen apps, Notification Centre, Launch Pad, Multitouch Gestures. Sure, you might have to interact differently with a trackpad than you would with a touchscreen, but the fundamentals are there.

The Airport Utility app already looks identical to the iOS app. iCloud login page too.

Let me reiterate when I say merge - I mean merge in terms of user interface, like we're already seeing.

pdjudd
Mar 20, 2012, 11:23 AM
Let me reiterate when I say merge - I mean merge in terms of user interface, like we're already seeing.

And I don't see that happening due to the fact the UI is based on many factors - like input that are just too fundamentally different. I think the differences make any such branding not an ideal situation. I jsut don't see the advantage for Apple - not when they obviously view desktop computing platforms as "trucks".

KnightWRX
Mar 20, 2012, 11:26 AM
MARKETING.

Fine, but then stop it with the crap :

But they'll merge a few other user interface things too.

There will never be a merge between AppKit/UIKit and Finder/Springboard. Those distinctions will remain as long as the input paradigms remain segregated.

----------

I'm speaking as an observer that has no real knowledge of the underpinnings of iOS and OS X and in what ways they are connected and in what ways they aren't.

But at this point in time, I'm inclined to side with Kilamite.

Basically my point, the whole "They are merging!" panic comes from people with no real knowledge of the systems.

Kilamite
Mar 20, 2012, 11:30 AM
And I don't see that happening due to the fact the UI is based on many factors - like input that are just too fundamentally different. I think the differences make any such branding not an ideal situation. I jsut don't see the advantage for Apple - not when they obviously view desktop computing platforms as "trucks".

Input isn't fundamentally different. Your finger is the cursor on a touchscreen. You can do multitouch gestures with a trackpad.

Run iPhoto '11 in fullscreen mode, and you have an iOS user interface. Look at the AirPort Utility app, or the iCloud.com homepage.

iLife '12 will no doubt use the iOS interface completely.

The aqua era of the Mac interface is going, and iOS is coming in to replace it, and to make that even clearer, Apple will change OS X to iOS.

There will never be a merge between AppKit/UIKit and Finder/Springboard. Those distinctions will remain as long as the input paradigms remain segregated.

Look at how many applications use the iOS interface on the Mac. You can't ignore that Apple is clearly brining the iOS interface to the Mac. Stop with your mumble grumble about AppKit/UIKit and Finder/Springboard being merged. Launch Pad on the Mac is the springboard. Face it, iOS interfaces are already appearing in major Apple applications.

The file system on the Mac may be gone in a few years.

KnightWRX
Mar 20, 2012, 11:36 AM
And I don't see that happening due to the fact the UI is based on many factors - like input that are just too fundamentally different. I think the differences make any such branding not an ideal situation. I jsut don't see the advantage for Apple - not when they obviously view desktop computing platforms as "trucks".

At least someone here gets it.

----------

Input isn't fundamentally different. Your finger is the cursor on a touchscreen. You can do multitouch gestures with a trackpad.

A touch screen and a trackpad are quite different. With a touchscreen, you're directly interacting with objects on screen. On a trackpad, you cannot do the same, as you cannot properly map the object's position from the screen you're looking at to the trackpad you're touching. Thus you need a visual cue on the screen to tell you where you are touching.

That cue is the good old cursor. You don't need a cursor on iOS. You need a cursor on OS X. Different input paradigms require different UI widgets/controls. Hence, UIKit vs AppKit, Springboard vs Finder.

Now you get it ! (Tell me you do so we can stop with the "merge" crap that's already been explained to you ad nauseum).

----------

Look at how many applications use the iOS interface on the Mac. You can't ignore that Apple is clearly brining the iOS interface to the Mac. Stop with your mumble grumble about AppKit/UIKit and Finder/Springboard being merged. Launch Pad on the Mac is the springboard. Face it, iOS interfaces are already appearing in major Apple applications.

LaunchPad is LaunchPad, it's not Springboard at all. There are no iOS interfaces on the Mac, there's no way to compile UIKit applications for use on a Mac except through Apple's iOS simulator.

The file system on the Mac may be gone in a few years.

Why ? There's a filesystem on iOS too. Are you mistaking the filesystem for a File Manager now ? You seem to be quite confused.

Kilamite
Mar 20, 2012, 11:36 AM
A touch screen and a trackpad are quite different. With a touchscreen, you're directly interacting with objects on screen. On a trackpad, you cannot do the same, as you cannot properly map the object's position from the screen you're looking at to the trackpad you're touching. Thus you need a visual cue on the screen to tell you where you are touching.

That cue is the good old cursor. You don't need a cursor on iOS. You need a cursor on OS X. Different input paradigms require different UI widgets/controls. Hence, UIKit vs AppKit, Springboard vs Finder.

I'm guessing you've never used iPhoto '11 in fullscreen mode. The cursor is your finger. You can do exactly the same with a cursor on a trackpad as you can with a finger on a touchscreen.

Now you get it ! (Tell me you do so we can stop with the "merge" crap that's already been explained to you ad nauseum).

Stop with comments like that.

LaunchPad is LaunchPad, it's not Springboard at all. There are no iOS interfaces on the Mac, there's no way to compile UIKit applications for use on a Mac except through Apple's iOS simulator.

iPhoto 11 in fullscreen mode...

Why ? There's a filesystem on iOS too. Are you mistaking the filesystem for a File Manager now ? You seem to be quite confused.

File system viewable to the user, so yes, file manager, Finder.

TwinMonkeys
Mar 20, 2012, 12:15 PM
They're starting to run out of big cats to use, and I doubt they'll use Cougar, so I think we'll see OS X1 within the next several years....I don't think it would be a complete rewrite though...and that's fine because it doesn't have to be.

MisterMe
Mar 20, 2012, 01:02 PM
They're starting to run out of big cats to use, ....Not true. Not even close to true.

Mad Mac Maniac
Mar 20, 2012, 03:39 PM
On the merging topic.

First of all, it IS possible to merge the desktop and touch experience. Look at the Windows 8 metro experience.

Secondly, I don't believe, and I don't think Kilamite is arguing either, that they will be completely unified in the way that windows 8 does it, but I could easily see Apple wanting to use marketing to bring the success of iOS to the PC realm. They would still have some significant differences. Think of it more like iOS mobile and iOS desktop. I mean even right now the iPad's iOS and iPhone's iOS have some notable differences (less apps on iPad, iPhone has 2 widgets, multitouch gestures on iPad, quick access camera on iPhone, completely rewritten apps, keyboards are different, etc), in that same light I could see the desktop getting an iOS version which is much more unique than iPhone is to iPad, but still yields a similar enough experience so that the average consumer would be able to move easily between the two.

Now will the iPad and Mac run all the same executable code? I dunno, probably not. I don't know anything about the nuances of the OS's so it may be difficult to accomplish that, but I also believe that if Apple could devote one team to updating a single every year, it would be much easier than having 2 seperate teams updating 2 seperate OS's every year.

Not true. Not even close to true.

Well now hold on here. For big cat species I would say the only possible unused names left are cougar, bobcat and lynx. And cougar has conotations and lynx is like linux. I mean would you really expect Apple to use names like ocelot, margay, colocolo, sunda clouded leopard, fishing cat, and the like? Just seems a bit silly.

but in fact, regardless of if Apple begins to market OS X as iOS, I can honestly imagine ML being the last of the big cats. With yearly updates, updating only through the MAS, and (I'm predicting) free updates, there doesn't seem to be much reason to keep the naming scheme going. iOS doesn't need it. It could just be OS X 10.9 or "the new OS X!".

KnightWRX
Mar 20, 2012, 06:42 PM
I'm guessing you've never used iPhoto '11 in fullscreen mode. The cursor is your finger. You can do exactly the same with a cursor on a trackpad as you can with a finger on a touchscreen.

No, you can't. Because again, you're not directly manipulating objects, you're indirectly manipulating them. Your finger is moving the cursor. Not so on iOS.

That means there's plenty of things you can't do. You have to actually move the cursor for it to be able to send "touches" (activation events in common WIMP parlance). On a touchscreen, I can touch one object at one end of the screen, lift my finger and then touch another unrelated object at the other end. Or both at the same time.

Cursor based interfaces and touch based interfaces are functionally and fundamentally different. UIkit vs AppKit, Springboard vs Finder. Ad nauseum until you get it.

Stop with comments like that.

There's no stopping the truth.

iPhoto 11 in fullscreen mode...

Still uses a cursor, still doesn't let me manipulate objects directly as I have no idea where my "finger" or mouse is touching. In fact, what about iPhoto 11 in full screen makes it iOS like ? It's akin to any other photo organizer application I've used in the last 2 decades if anything. Its UI is straight out of the WIMP model, except running in fullscreen mode instead of windowed mode.

File system viewable to the user, so yes, file manager, Finder.

Finder does not show you the filesystem. If it did, you'd gouge out your eyes. Filesystems (inode tables, groupings, flags, properties) have little meaning to a user. Finder shows you a certain interpretation of the contents of your disk based on a VFS layer to hide the gory details of the different underlying filesystems that a OS can read/write to. NTFS, HFS+, UFS, ext[234] are all fundamentally different in how they are represented on disk.

Finder enables certain operations (copy, move, list, delete, cwd) on your disks files through the kernel's VFS layer. It is not a "user viewable" filesystem.

----------

First of all, it IS possible to merge the desktop and touch experience. Look at the Windows 8 metro experience.


You mean the one that's completely separate, requires switching mode from one to the other and is emulated on keyboard/mouse devices ?

That's like the iOS simulator. Sure I can work the springboard with my mouse and the cursor acting like a finger. It sure as heck isn't like running the app on the actual touchscreen though.

Mad Mac Maniac
Mar 20, 2012, 07:05 PM
You mean the one that's completely separate, requires switching mode from one to the other and is emulated on keyboard/mouse devices ?

That's like the iOS simulator. Sure I can work the springboard with my mouse and the cursor acting like a finger. It sure as heck isn't like running the app on the actual touchscreen though.

First, as I stated, I'm referring to solely the metro interface. It is my understanding that everything can be done in metro (assuming apps are updated accordingly). The legacy desktop mode is only there for people that refuse to change and I believe is part of a transitional phase; soon (windows 9 or 10) it will all be metro.

Although I haven't used windows 8, a good friend of mine (5 times the microsoft fanboy than I am for Apple) said that the metro interface actually works pretty well with a cursor input. Yes there are some different ways of doing the same thing. For example, the touch UI relies a lot of swiping from the edge of the screen, but if you have a cursor the same actions are accomplished by pushing the pointer to the corner of the screen. It just takes a little bit of ingenuity to design, but it can be done to make one UI that can work for touch and pointer.

iOS has given Apple 2 opportunities. One for success. And two to restart how an operating system works from the ground up. It was built simply for a phone, but now it is working it's way up and is definitely the future of Apple

Kilamite
Mar 20, 2012, 07:19 PM
My point was the GUI from iOS coming to OS X. iPhoto '11 is an example of that.

Eventually, the appearance of OS X will look like iOS - buttons, menus, fonts. Just because you use your finger with iOS and a mouse with OS X, doesn't mean they can't look the same to some extent.

And when OS X does get the general appearance of iOS, Apple might as well call OS X iOS.

The user doesn't care about what goes on underneath. If you need to use your finger and interact with objects differently on iOS on the iPad compared to iOS on the Mac, so be it.

You seem to be confusing my point with the fact that I think Apple will let you run iOS iPad apps and somehow interact with them using a mouse. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying Apple will rebrand OS X as iOS, and we'll see a lot of the user interface elements (buttons, fonts etc) look exactly like iOS, as Apple is already doing with their applications and web apps.

MisterMe
Mar 20, 2012, 09:04 PM
...

Well now hold on here. For big cat species I would say the only possible unused names left are cougar, bobcat and lynx. And cougar has conotations and lynx is like linux. I mean would you really expect Apple to use names like ocelot, margay, colocolo, sunda clouded leopard, fishing cat, and the like? Just seems a bit silly.

...It is a mystery why you would persist in this assertion when a simple Google search will show just how wrong you are. There are 36 non-domestic species of cats. You may find them here (http://bigcats3.tripod.com/).*

*This list does not include alternate names for the same species such as puma, panther, and mountain lion, and catamount. The addition to these four names alone stretches the list to 40. How many other such examples, I don't know.

beosound3200
Mar 20, 2012, 09:51 PM
It is a mystery why you would persist in this assertion when a simple Google search will show just how wrong you are. There are 36 non-domestic species of cats. You may find them here (http://bigcats3.tripod.com/).*

*This list does not include alternate names for the same species such as puma, panther, and mountain lion, and catamount. The addition to these four names alone stretches the list to 40. How many other such examples, I don't know.

yeah, 10.9 Geoffroy's Cat, or Jungle Cat, or Flat-Headed Cat, or Kodkod :rolleyes:

i think apple has run out of names. but they've been expecting that

Mad Mac Maniac
Mar 20, 2012, 09:59 PM
It is a mystery why you would persist in this assertion when a simple Google search will show just how wrong you are. There are 36 non-domestic species of cats. You may find them here (http://bigcats3.tripod.com/).*

*This list does not include alternate names for the same species such as puma, panther, and mountain lion, and catamount. The addition to these four names alone stretches the list to 40. How many other such examples, I don't know.

It is a mystery to my why you would persist in this assertation when a simple read of my full post and sense of logic would show just how wrong you are.

African Golden Cat, Andean Mountain Cat, Black-Foot Cat, Caracal, Pallas' Cat, Temminck's Cat... shall I go on?? The ONLY names on that link that Apple could conceivably use would be Cougar, bobcat, and Lynx.... sounds familiar...

FYI, I didn't "persist" with anything. I jumped to the defense of someone else.

yeah, 10.9 Geoffroy's Cat, or Jungle Cat, or Flat-Headed Cat, or Kodkod :rolleyes:

i think apple has run out of names. but they've been expecting that

Word

throAU
Mar 20, 2012, 11:38 PM
The UIs are different because the input paradigms are different.

And this is why i think a merge is actually inevitable. Your desktop/laptop will be phased out for most people by a tablet that wirelessly connects to all your input devices, a larger display, and swiches UI when you get to your desk. the elements are already there - bluetooth mouse/keyboard/trackpad, airplay for wireless display - all we need is an apple inductive charging pad to sit your device on.


Essentially you'll have something similar to OS X's UI running in desktop mode, and iOS running in tablet mode, depending on whether or not you are connected to input/display peripherals.

As discussed, and as you say, the OS underneath is the same, its the UI that is different - as mobile hardware becomes powerful enough for the average desktop user (imho, it is there already) we'll see hybrid type devices start to appear.

imho. i've been following home computer hardware since 1984 though so make of that what you will.

----------

yeah, 10.9 Geoffroy's Cat, or Jungle Cat, or Flat-Headed Cat, or Kodkod :rolleyes:

i think apple has run out of names. but they've been expecting that

I propose Simons Cat (http://www.simonscat.com/)


:D

KnightWRX
Mar 21, 2012, 04:15 AM
My point was the GUI from iOS coming to OS X. iPhoto '11 is an example of that.

You still have not explained how. I have told you iPhoto '11 doesn't behave like the iOS GUI at all.

From the rest of your post, it seems you're not even talking about merging GUIs and UIs, you're taking about skinning. Like they would apply an iOS skin to OS X just to rebrand it (why would they even rebrand it ? All I can see that would achieve would be grief from Mac users and provide them with no benefit at all).

----------

And this is why i think a merge is actually inevitable. Your desktop/laptop will be phased out for most people by a tablet that wirelessly connects to all your input devices, a larger display, and swiches UI when you get to your desk. the elements are already there - bluetooth mouse/keyboard/trackpad, airplay for wireless display - all we need is an apple inductive charging pad to sit your device on.


Essentially you'll have something similar to OS X's UI running in desktop mode, and iOS running in tablet mode, depending on whether or not you are connected to input/display peripherals.

As discussed, and as you say, the OS underneath is the same, its the UI that is different - as mobile hardware becomes powerful enough for the average desktop user (imho, it is there already) we'll see hybrid type devices start to appear.

imho. i've been following home computer hardware since 1984 though so make of that what you will.

And then we can all have the following thread :

- "Apple is sheer genius!" +34
- "Hum... I had this back in 2011, when it was called a Motorola Atrix" -96
- "Nyuh uh, this is nothing like the Atrix because people are actually buying this" +154
- "But it's the same god damn thing. Apple just copied it" -253
- "Samsung are the only ones that copy!" +378
- "We weren't even talking about Samsung ?!?" -456

...

I can't wait... :(

Kilamite
Mar 21, 2012, 08:28 AM
You still have not explained how. I have told you iPhoto '11 doesn't behave like the iOS GUI at all.

From the rest of your post, it seems you're not even talking about merging GUIs and UIs, you're taking about skinning. Like they would apply an iOS skin to OS X just to rebrand it (why would they even rebrand it ? All I can see that would achieve would be grief from Mac users and provide them with no benefit at all).

Looking like and behaving like, yes as you pointed out, are different for iPhoto '11 in iOS and iPhoto '11 full screen on the Mac, as you can do more gestures on the iPad.

But the point is, it looks exactly the same. Apple is bringing the iOS GUI theme to the Mac slowly. They would rebrand it because OS X is an old name - they want a new skinned OS that has far more multitouch gestures and innovations to have a new name. iOS is a strong brand.

And there would be little benefit to current Mac users, but this is Apple..

pdjudd
Mar 21, 2012, 08:48 AM
But the point is, it looks exactly the same.
So what - it is functionally very different. You are talking about re branding something that functions very differently. iOS is not Mac OS and just because they visually look the same doesn't justify a name change.

There is absolutely no reason to re-brand anything here - especially just because it is old (or perceived that way). The only reason that Apple would abandon a good name is for a darned good reason. Right now the systems are different at a functional level - far too different to justify a rename. Heck, Apple even specifically markets the devices as different things for a deliberate reason - it want's people to understand that their laptops and desktops are different from their mobile devices.

KnightWRX
Mar 21, 2012, 10:15 AM
They would rebrand it because OS X is an old name

So McDonald's should rebrand their restaurants because it's an old name ? Hint, old brands are a good thing. Apple knows this.

You're still not making any sense in all of this.

pdjudd
Mar 21, 2012, 10:18 AM
You're still not making any sense in all of this.
None of them does. It boils down to "they look the same in this way so the naming should be the same too!" That doesn't make much sense to me either.

Kilamite
Mar 21, 2012, 10:24 AM
Well lets just agree to disagree, and come summer 2013 when iOS 7 comes out, maybe this topic will get revisited.

TwinMonkeys
Mar 22, 2012, 10:56 PM
Not true. Not even close to true.

I understand that there are many cat names that can still conceivably be used.

But out of well known big cats that (in my opinion) are reasonably likely to be used...they're starting to run out.

This is just my opinion. I could be dead wrong.

atMac
Mar 22, 2012, 11:10 PM
They could just continue on...10.10, 10.11, etc.

Not really, 10.11 in version numbers is less than 10.2 so reading it anyone familiar with version numbers would say it was an older OS.

Personally I feel 10.6 was more like a 10.55. it was 10.5 cleaned, optimized and tweaked.

Brad9893
Mar 22, 2012, 11:27 PM
Not really, 10.11 in version numbers is less than 10.2 so reading it anyone familiar with version numbers would say it was an older OS.

Personally I feel 10.6 was more like a 10.55. it was 10.5 cleaned, optimized and tweaked.

I disagree. Apple's already set the precedent. If what you are saying is true, the people would think that Mac OS X Tiger 10.4.10 would be equivalent to Mac OS X Tiger 10.4.1. We know that's not true, and I don't think anyone thinks that they are the same. It also works the same for 10.4.11. It is not an older version than 10.4.2. These are version numbers, and version numbers aren't decimals. 10.55 would be the fifty-fifth version of Mac OS X, wouldn't it? It wouldn't be between 10.5 and 10.6.

Mad Mac Maniac
Mar 23, 2012, 06:53 AM
Right now I am running 10.7.3

Woah, his does that work!? Double decimal! That's why (or is an easy proof) they aren't numerical.

10.1.11 and 10.11.1 are clearly different right?

pdjudd
Mar 23, 2012, 07:19 AM
Not really, 10.11 in version numbers is less than 10.2 so reading it anyone familiar with version numbers would say it was an older OS.

No it isn't. Software ware versions are not decimals. 11 comes after 10 after 9, etc. If you want to differentiate between 10.1 and 10.2 you create a subset using another decimal. 10.1.x.

Personally I feel 10.6 was more like a 10.55. it was 10.5 cleaned, optimized and tweaked.
And yet is was a lot more than that, hence the new version number. Just because the changes are not visual doesn't mean that they are there and real

I disagree. Apple's already set the precedent. If what you are saying is true, the people would think that Mac OS X Tiger 10.4.10 would be equivalent to Mac OS X Tiger 10.4.1. We know that's not true, and I don't think anyone thinks that they are the same. It also works the same for 10.4.11. It is not an older version than 10.4.2. These are version numbers, and version numbers aren't decimals. 10.55 would be the fifty-fifth version of Mac OS X, wouldn't it? It wouldn't be between 10.5 and 10.6.

Indeed. Version numbers are not decimal. Each number is independent of each other and should be seen as independent numbers. The only relation that they have is in terms of hierarchy. Heck, Apple isn't the only guys in town that treat version numbers as non-decimals. It doesn't happen very frequently because most version numbers roll over faster (we aren't talking about OS's) than that. They also use other branding than the version number.

throAU
Mar 28, 2012, 07:58 AM
Not really, 10.11 in version numbers is less than 10.2 so reading it anyone familiar with version numbers would say it was an older OS.

Personally I feel 10.6 was more like a 10.55. it was 10.5 cleaned, optimized and tweaked.

10.6 threw away powerpc and carbon support for a start - this is a MAJOR change (in terms of application compatibility), and hence worthy of a bump in "major" version number.

Jarland
Mar 29, 2012, 01:50 AM
OS X has a nice ring to it. It makes for nice logo designs. If you ask me, XI is less attractive. Apple likes attractive and catchy, and who could blame them with their success?

They'll rebrand it as a unification of their operating systems. Say hello to iOS on your Mac. Unification of their branding is something I think Apple values, and it's no secret that they're blending the functions of the two. At the heart of it, the two operating systems are the same. At the user level they're growing closer. What's left beyond further blending function? The name.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I'd be likely to place a bet on it.

TSE
Mar 31, 2012, 06:08 PM
To be honest, I don't think I will ever upgrade from Snow Leopard to Lion or Mountain Lion... It hurts the battery life of my MacBook Pro and the fact is I see no reason to upgrade.

Mac OS X will be here for another decade if we follow what Steve Jobs said when OS X first came out - the fact that OS X will be the foundation of Apple operating systems for 20 years.

aarona
Apr 5, 2012, 11:33 AM
The next Mac OS is going to be a browser, running HTML6.
The next Windows OS is going to be a browser too.

What does it run under the hood? Who cares. What can Apple get for "free"? Android looks appealing.

But really it doesn't much matter what is running underneath. Apple has NEVER been about software per se, it's been about user experience and branding.

Computers are commoditizing. The iPad broke ground not because it was a new interaction paradigm (touch), but because it took 90% of computer users and said to them - "you don't actually NEED a computer, you need a simple device to consume content". The brilliance of the iPad is that the computation aspect is "invisible".

Who needs a laptop or desktop anymore? Not many - only the elite content creators. And here is the problem... I'm not sure Apple wants to hold the PC market given the profitability of iDevices.

Consider this one fact: the iPad has made more revenue for Apple than 20 years of selling Macs. TWENTY YEARS. So why does Apple want to keep creating Macbooks? Beats me.

talmy
Apr 5, 2012, 12:22 PM
So why does Apple want to keep creating Macbooks?

Probably because it makes money and is growing. It's a $20B+ business with a high profit margin.

aarona
Apr 5, 2012, 12:58 PM
Probably because it makes money and is growing. It's a $20B+ business with a high profit margin.

Not sure where you get those numbers - lets fact check. Interwebz to the rescue!

I apologize my words were clearly not convincing, I'll let the pictures do the talking.

http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4f21c6a5ecad04411a000020/chart-of-the-day-apple-revenue-by-segment.jpg

http://www.asymco.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Screen-Shot-2011-11-21-at-11-21-1.40.59-PM.png

http://www.asymco.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Screen-shot-2011-01-25-at-1-25-11.33.15-AM1.png

I'd really love to see the third chart for last year...

Basically my question still stands - why keep dumping money into product innovation on OSX? (Canibalization - not even gonna go there)

Mad Mac Maniac
Apr 5, 2012, 01:30 PM
Basically my question still stands - why keep dumping money into product innovation on OSX? (Canibalization - not even gonna go there)

I have a couple of things to throw in there.

Firstly, the Mac profits/revenue seem roughly equivalent to, but actually slightly higher than, iPad profit. Surely you wouldn't argue for Apple to ditch the iPad? Yes I realize the mac has been out for over 2 decades to the iPad's 2 years, but still, as stand the Mac is beating the iPad.

Secondly, Apple wants you to buy into the entire ecosystem. If iOS ever one day replaces all functionality for the Mac then maybe the Mac will disappear, but ideally Apple wants their products to feed off each other (i.e. the halo effect). Personally, part of the reason I bought an iPhone was because I had a Mac. This is part of Apples genius. The more you buy into their ecosystem the better.

I mean look at how tiny the iTunes/music sliver is... Maybe Apple should kill off iTunes? Of course not.

beosound3200
Apr 5, 2012, 01:31 PM
Not sure where you get those numbers - lets fact check. Interwebz to the rescue!

I apologize my words were clearly not convincing, I'll let the pictures do the talking.

Image (http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4f21c6a5ecad04411a000020/chart-of-the-day-apple-revenue-by-segment.jpg)

Image (http://www.asymco.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Screen-Shot-2011-11-21-at-11-21-1.40.59-PM.png)

Image (http://www.asymco.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Screen-shot-2011-01-25-at-1-25-11.33.15-AM1.png)

I'd really love to see the third chart for last year...

Basically my question still stands - why keep dumping money into product innovation on OSX? (Canibalization - not even gonna go there)

because it makes money? and is rising? and is part of 'apple unified and integrated experience?

according to you, they should also dump ipod and itunes, they dont make nearly as much money as ipad and iphone. chill out

aarona
Apr 5, 2012, 01:55 PM
Mac profits/revenue seem roughly equivalent to, but actually slightly higher than, iPad profit. Surely you wouldn't argue for Apple to ditch the iPad? Yes I realize the mac has been out for over 2 decades to the iPad's 2 years, but still, as stand the Mac is beating the iPad.
I assume you are familiar with the innovation S-curve? They may be similar today, but I (and other investors) would be EXTREMELY disappointed if the iPad didn't follow a similar growth trajectory of the iPhone. We expect iPad sales will do x10 in the next 2-3 years.

Secondly, Apple wants you to buy into the entire ecosystem. If iOS ever one day replaces all functionality for the Mac then maybe the Mac will disappear, but ideally Apple wants their products to feed off each other (i.e. the halo effect). Personally, part of the reason I bought an iPhone was because I had a Mac. This is part of Apples genius. The more you buy into their ecosystem the better.

This has nothing to do with Apple. Sure... every company wants you to buy every product they make. Duh. But actually iPad cannibalism of Macbook is a very real thing. Windoze is really taking the hit here, but so is Apple.

Read my prior post. I argue that the genius of iPad was to look 90% of potential "computer" buyers in the face and convince them the LAST thing they need is a computer.

C'mon now... your iPhone argument is a bit disingenuous. You bought an iPhone because it's the best smartphone out there. If Android or Blackberry was leaps and bounds above what Apple could deliver guess what - most people won't care they have a Mac, there gonna get the best smartphone they can. I mean... hows that Windows halo effect workin out for MSFT's phones? LOL.

I mean look at how tiny the iTunes/music sliver is... Maybe Apple should kill off iTunes? Of course not.
I would not be the least bit surprised if iTunes goes away or becomes VERY small in the next 5 years - especially with pressure from content providers. iTunes is a 2000 product, app store is 2012.

NOTE: I'm actually a bit suspicious to not see app store revenue. I wonder if that is rolled into the iPhone segment. ;)

----------

because it makes money? and is rising?

I guess you are "hard of chart reading". Take another look - the share of OSX revenue has been dropping for FOUR YEARS. An inconvenient truth.

Heck, do a straight-line extrapolation of the last graph... OSX will make up 0.0% of Apple's revenue by 2015.

Joking... :D

beosound3200
Apr 5, 2012, 02:52 PM
I guess you are "hard of chart reading". Take another look - the share of OSX revenue has been dropping for FOUR YEARS. An inconvenient truth.

Heck, do a straight-line extrapolation of the last graph... OSX will make up 0.0% of Apple's revenue by 2015.

Joking... :D

learn a difference between relative and absolute. macs are making tens of billions of dollars

again, your concept could be working if we were talking about samsung, but we're not

let me enlighten you, iphone is just a phone if you dont have a mac. but if you do, especially now with mountain lion/icloud its becoming much more. imagine the further releases. its all about integration, every step apple takes is towards better integration. and you cant have integration without a mac. so you can expect them to stay with their mediocre 20-30% rise when all the others fall :rolleyes:

facts only tell 50% of the story (i would say 30%). you need to put those facts in context. thats what differentiates people and their capabilities. today, everybody has facts (internet) but not all know what to make of them ;) cheers

and if your so fond of facts, gimme some about macbook cannibalism (i hope youre not talking about macbook pro)
cannibalism is happening, of course, that was the reason for ipads success, an alternative solution for people that dont need a whole computer. now gimme some numbers about macbook air sales and their rise in the past two years ;)

edit: end yeah, what about peripherals, should they stop selling those?

talmy
Apr 5, 2012, 03:08 PM
Probably because it makes money and is growing. It's a $20B+ business with a high profit margin.

Not sure where you get those numbers - lets fact check. Interwebz to the rescue!

Uh, from the latest Conference Call (direct from Apple) -

- Set new records for desktops and portables, up 26% year-over-year versus 0% growth for entire PC industry
- Mac sales outgrew the market in all geographies, particularly in Asia-Pacific

Chart on Macworld site last January (expect new one in next week). "Mac" here would include Mac software sales, presumably, since it isn't called out separately:

http://images.macworld.com/images/article/2012/01/appleq112-totalrevbyline-269923.jpg

They don't break down profit margin by division, but I wouldn't be surprised if Apple was making more profit on computer sales than all other PC manufacturers combined.

Added -- looking at your charts, the third one shows contribution to gross margin dropping, however it only shows % of total gross margin contribution of Macs is dropping, not that the gross margin is dropping.

aarona
Apr 5, 2012, 03:13 PM
learn a difference between relative and absolute. macs are making tens of billions of dollars
#facepalm. Definitely hard of chart reading. This is simply not true. Look at the second chart again. To be generous, let's call it $2 billion a quarter in 2011, much less in 2010. To say "making tens of billions" is just a lie. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant "has made tens of billions over the last two decades.

iphone is just a phone if you dont have a mac. but if you do, especially now with mountain lion/icloud its becoming much more. imagine the further releases. its all about integration, every step apple takes is towards better integration.
Umm, dude. I develop techology for a living and own a software company. I'm not dazzled by fancy shmancy marketing. I know *exactly* what vertical integration of Apple products get you (and what it doesn't get you). Just a phone? Catch a clue. iPhone revolutionized mobile tech 3 years ago and it had NOTHING to do with integration with a laptop or desktop PC.

and you cant have integration without a mac.
I think you just argued that Apple is the ONLY company that provides vertical integration of their products. Which is a pretty fantastic (and frankly weird) claim. So... I'm not gonna touch this one.

facts only tell 50% of the story (i would say 30%). you need to put those facts in context.
And just make up the other 70% right? :D Cooool.

thats what differentiates people and their capabilities. today, everybody has facts (internet) but not all know what to make of them ;) cheers
On this we agree completely.

So you've not made a single compelling argument for why Apple would maintain a product line that gives them lower revenues and takes away demand from their profitable product line. You talk about integration with iCloud. But hold on to your keyboard and let me blow your mind for a second... iCloud is.... wait for it.... a SOFTWARE product which is based in.... wait for it.... the cloud. In other words, this vaunted integration you talk about has ZERO to do with physical devices and everything to do with software.

The lightbulb goes on in 3...2...1

aarona
Apr 5, 2012, 03:27 PM
....I wouldn't be surprised if Apple was making more profit on computer sales than all other PC manufacturers combined.
I get the feeling you surprise easily... ;)

FYI: Wimpy little Dell made about twice the profit that Apple did off the Mac line in Q4-2011

Surprised yet? :D

chrf097
Apr 5, 2012, 04:02 PM
- "Apple is sheer genius!" +34
- "Hum... I had this back in 2011, when it was called a Motorola Atrix" -96
- "Nyuh uh, this is nothing like the Atrix because people are actually buying this" +154
- "But it's the same god damn thing. Apple just copied it" -253
- "Samsung are the only ones that copy!" +378
- "We weren't even talking about Samsung ?!?" -456

Because it's not good until Apple does it! (Notification Center and "Multitasking" anyone?)

It's also funny because Webtop/Ubuntu for Android is actually really really good.

-------
Is arguing over what The next next Mac OS version will be called before we even have Mac OS 10.8 really worth it? Unless one of you is specifically on the Apple naming team (or whoever does it), all you say is speculation, not guaranteed. Go argue about something useful now.

Mad Mac Maniac
Apr 5, 2012, 07:25 PM
I get the feeling you surprise easily... ;)

FYI: Wimpy little Dell made about twice the profit that Apple did off the Mac line in Q4-2011

Surprised yet? :D

Are you talking from ALL of Dell's profit? Because... On a gross margin basis, I think almost two-thirds of our gross margin now comes from server, storage, network, services, software, peripherals. So from that standpoint, the epicenter of the company has really shifted in terms of profitability to these other areas and away from the PC, which is now only about one-third of the Company’s margin.

The only reason their profits were so high was because they capitalized on other areas. I cant' find their profit direct from PC's, but I'm sure it's very small

beosound3200
Apr 5, 2012, 08:18 PM
#facepalm. Definitely hard of chart reading. This is simply not true. Look at the second chart again. To be generous, let's call it $2 billion a quarter in 2011, much less in 2010. To say "making tens of billions" is just a lie. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant "has made tens of billions over the last two decades.


Umm, dude. I develop techology for a living and own a software company. I'm not dazzled by fancy shmancy marketing. I know *exactly* what vertical integration of Apple products get you (and what it doesn't get you). Just a phone? Catch a clue. iPhone revolutionized mobile tech 3 years ago and it had NOTHING to do with integration with a laptop or desktop PC.


I think you just argued that Apple is the ONLY company that provides vertical integration of their products. Which is a pretty fantastic (and frankly weird) claim. So... I'm not gonna touch this one.


And just make up the other 70% right? :D Cooool.


On this we agree completely.

So you've not made a single compelling argument for why Apple would maintain a product line that gives them lower revenues and takes away demand from their profitable product line. You talk about integration with iCloud. But hold on to your keyboard and let me blow your mind for a second... iCloud is.... wait for it.... a SOFTWARE product which is based in.... wait for it.... the cloud. In other words, this vaunted integration you talk about has ZERO to do with physical devices and everything to do with software.

The lightbulb goes on in 3...2...1

yeah, you definitely sound like a software engineer... 18yo writing iphone apps

you basically dont know squat.

you need to put apple in context. who cares what you think? what apple does, and what they emphasize is integration, look it up, between devices. mac - iphone - ipad - iphone. better call it horizontal. i dont care if it goes through icloud or not, and frankly, nobody does. consumers are only interested if it works, and it works, every year better and better. and marketing? yeah, it definitely works. again, youre the least important figure here, nobody cares what you think. you need to put yourself in average consumer shoes if you wanna have a sane discussion, first, please dont spread your opinion around - it aint different - its stupid, second when you talk about companies, you dont talk about what they mean to you, or do their marketing gets to you, or how do you feel about them, or what you think, you talk about their impact on the world and where are they positioned and where are they heading. basically, you need to be objective.
whats the most popular (not the best selling, best selling means cheapest) pc brand in the world? whose pc department saw 20-30% rise in 2011 (everyone else fell)?

and yeah, just a phone. imagine if iphone 4s run android, where would it be stacked? the best?

what happened 5 years ago doesnt matter any more. its over, time to move on. and apple moves on - integration
the problem with you is you dont even try to understand the future. someday youll understand thats more important where youre heading than where you've been. i wont even bother asking what you think about the future of the iphone and its position, im afraid of the answer, i could get infected and my head could fall off. i dont want that.

i understand that you dont get it, its not easy for everybody. apples goal is to completely integrate all of your devices. you just change the screen size throughout the day. tv-mac-ipad-iphone-ipod. integrated. lion was first. you probably know how mountain lion is developing, every year more and more integrated.

you are better off not thinking. who else integrates pc-phone-tablet as easy and as intuitive as apple (for average costumer)? nobody? why? because they dont build their own os. integration comes built in, just enter your apple id when you turn it on for the first time. how many things i would need to install and how many settings i would need to change if i bought a dell laptop, motorola tablet and a samsung phone?

apple is software+hardware. if it werent for software, how many people would be buying macs or iphones? pc are 50% faster at half the price. integration between hardware and software (in-house), and now icloud and devices is what makes apple unique.

i feel like im talking to a little kid, those things are well know for ages.

but i really dont care. the only reason i even posted here is because i read your statement here that apple should dump pc because they relatively make less and less money as opposed to ios devices, while making absolutely more and more money.
that claim is stupid as it gets. you even bothered to put on graphs. why would anyone sane cut off the department that makes 8 billion a year (50% profit margins)? even if its 1% of their business.

but its not about that. its about a whole user experience. you cant have complete integration without a mac. even if it made 1 billion a year, apple would keep it.

but no matter what i say, you wont understand, because if you could, you already would.

you say you need a reason? i've given 8 billion of them. + the most important one - integration, as easy as it gets

and yeah, halo effect is real. because of the apple ecosystem and integration.

and little something about cannibalism. so it definitely aint good for apple if, god forbid, a person who wanted to buy an ipad (499usd) buys an macbook air (999usd) instead. the cannibalism is happening the other way, ipads eating into macbook sales, get it? or do i need to put some graphs?

if i called you a troll, it would be a compliment.

btw, youre from the states?

and by all means, keep going, this is very entertaining :rolleyes:

cheers, ...wait for it... barney :rolleyes: changed my mind, ...wait for it... 16yo making memes

Frozzie
Apr 5, 2012, 08:49 PM
After OS X will be OS Y... I don't know why I is added to X when Y is a character after X in terms of alphabets. The problem is after OS Z, where do you go? Then you could think of OS ZI, OS ZII, OS ZVII, whatever. But we still haven't used Y and Z yet. ;)

beosound3200
Apr 6, 2012, 06:40 AM
After OS X will be OS Y... I don't know why I is added to X when Y is a character after X in terms of alphabets. The problem is after OS Z, where do you go? Then you could think of OS ZI, OS ZII, OS ZVII, whatever. But we still haven't used Y and Z yet. ;)

x is ten in roman numbers, xi is eleven, which comes after ten

TheDutchGuy
Apr 6, 2012, 06:54 AM
Interesting thread! Maybe I can share my personal and humble opinion on why I'm about to move from a bunch of different computers and gadgets to all Apple?

My first Apple product was an iPod Touch and I fell in love with the simplicity of the product! Soon after that, the iPhone 3GS came and I just renewed to the 4S.

Apple always had my interest, but I didn't went for it, because of the high(er) pricing. What has changed my opinion and why am I about to get a Macbook Pro, iPad and Airport and getting rid of all the other gadgets/PCs? Two things!

1: The simplicity of products
2: Integration

In my eyes it is worth to pay (a little) extra to get a product that doesn't need hours of setting up and praying it will still works in 6 months. It's simple, everybody can do it. I've got years and years of Win(DOS) experience, but I'm done with spending hours of setting up, (re)installing, etc.

And the fact all Apple products work together without any problems, enhances the user (MY) experience! Integration is something that won't go away, but will get bigger and better in the years to come and Apple knew it!

True, there are other companies who offers the same. True, cloud based is software. BUT, I haven't found a company who've made it as simple as Apple. So you can be a developer, a fan-boy, have your own business, but it all comes down to the regular user, the average Joe, ME. And I just want an overall system that's simple to use, without worrying if software/hardware will work together and do the things I wanna do, whether I'm at my home studio or on the road.

So I don't see Apple getting rid of a certain product line, simply because they know the average Joe (me) wants the whole package, the whole simplistic integrated user experience.

Again, this is my personal and humble opinion. You don't have to agree with me. But I think I did give you an example WHY the average Joe can/will make the transformation to Apple, like I'm about to do. And that's what some people has to keep in mind, first and foremost it's about the average Joe...


Ps: Before I get comments on how would I know, because I don't have my own setup yet. I did do my research and I did test all Apple products I want to get myself. And I'm not talking about playing around for 15 minutes at an Apple Store...

Frozzie
Apr 6, 2012, 10:26 AM
x is ten in roman numbers, xi is eleven, which comes after ten

You think I didn't know that? Why would I have said I, II and VII whatever in that post :p It was a hint to just joke about saying people should think outside box and say that after X isn't just XI, it can be Y or Z. ;)

KingJosh
Apr 6, 2012, 10:33 AM
OSX is a catchy name. OSXI is fairly crap. From a marketing standpoint, it will go to 10.11 before it goes to XI. Unless they further the OS in some way that sets it apart from OSX.

Since the current portables are becoming the computers of "tomorrow", I doubt OSX will ever slip into OSXI. Chances are great to see OSX go through the decade and then disappear with current computing formats at Apple. Based on the trends and speculation, "pro" macs and high-powered computers will become more of a sub-niche market, and now that the visionary of Apple is in the dirt, the bean-counters will shortly reign: everything will be a mere profit, no matter what the quality. So the cheaper/smaller versions will be king and OSX will die with the machines it used to work.

I trust Apple to come up with a good new name.

beosound3200
Apr 6, 2012, 11:43 AM
You think I didn't know that? Why would I have said I, II and VII whatever in that post :p It was a hint to just joke about saying people should think outside box and say that after X isn't just XI, it can be Y or Z. ;)

my apologies :)

nsilva
Apr 8, 2012, 11:34 PM
In my eyes it is worth to pay (a little) extra to get a product that doesn't need hours of setting up and praying it will still works in 6 months. It's simple, everybody can do it. I've got years and years of Win(DOS) experience, but I'm done with spending hours of setting up, (re)installing, etc.

And the fact all Apple products work together without any problems, enhances the user (MY) experience! Integration is something that won't go away, but will get bigger and better in the years to come and Apple knew it!

True, there are other companies who offers the same. True, cloud based is software. BUT, I haven't found a company who've made it as simple as Apple. So you can be a developer, a fan-boy, have your own business, but it all comes down to the regular user, the average Joe, ME. And I just want an overall system that's simple to use, without worrying if software/hardware will work together and do the things I wanna do, whether I'm at my home studio or on the road.


If I had some kind of award to give. It would go straight to Apple's marketing department. :rolleyes:

WalkingSnake
Apr 14, 2012, 09:30 PM
This is the most heated debate over something that nobody knows anything about that I have ever seen.

Don't get me wrong, I'm enjoying the viewpoints and the debate, but there are simply no rights or wrongs because none of know. Yet this is so heated... and I'm loving it. :)

okboy
Apr 16, 2012, 06:09 PM
Sorry if this has been said before, but I think we could see something like OS Xi. Emphasis on the lower case i, as in iPad. It could potentially run iOS applications and have touch screen capabilities and whatnot. They could replace the Dock with the iOS double-home-button-tap multi-task menu (is there a better name for that?) And I think the Menu bar needs to vacate somehow. Maybe it should be option for apps, since I notice a lot don't do much at all as it is.

andrewpturko
Apr 23, 2012, 11:56 PM
They could just continue on...10.10, 10.11, etc.

OS X 10.10 would technically be OS X Puma...a major downgrade. :D

MattInOz
Apr 24, 2012, 01:04 AM
Basically my question still stands - why keep dumping money into product innovation on OSX? (Canibalization - not even gonna go there)

Your Chart Show that Mac is still growing.
The hardware is fairly mature and no big demand for investment. Especially top end of the Mac line there is nothing that springs to mind as as a big leap any of them could make to change the useability. Sure swap tech x for x+1 to improve value.
The software investment will flow to both platforms but some projects will need a brute force test bed like the Mac to ever be mature enough for iOS.

My question back to you is why forgo the Profit and the control Mac OS X gives them over their own development?

Brad9893
Apr 24, 2012, 01:26 AM
OS X 10.10 would technically be OS X Puma...a major downgrade. :D

No, it wouldn't. This was already discussed on the previous page. Version numbers are not decimals.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=14592812&postcount=87

andrewpturko
Apr 24, 2012, 02:10 PM
No, it wouldn't. This was already discussed on the previous page. Version numbers are not decimals.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=14592812&postcount=87

Sorry, I wasn't aware there was a different version of math...

In all seriousness though, I find that this numbering system could be confusing for anyone who has passed the 3rd grade.

MisterMe
Apr 24, 2012, 02:38 PM
Most of us here passed 3rd grade. However, not all of us passed Computer Literacy.

andrewpturko
Apr 24, 2012, 05:51 PM
Most of us here passed 3rd grade. However, not all of us passed Computer Literacy.

Indeed

rekhyt
May 2, 2012, 03:24 PM
Mac OS X --> OS X --> OS

... Jokes aside, OS XI, as the other posters before me rightfully said, it doesn't sound as good as OS X.

Mad Mac Maniac
May 2, 2012, 03:27 PM
Mac OS X --> OS X --> OS

... Jokes aside, OS XI, as the other posters before me rightfully said, it doesn't sound as good as OS X.

Perhaps not... but if there is any sort of merge of iOS and OS X (plausible) then it wouldn't be OS XI, it would be OS Xi

Did I just blow your mind? :p

MisterMe
May 2, 2012, 06:41 PM
...

Did I just blow your mind? :pNo.

Umbreus
May 2, 2012, 07:09 PM
Does anyone here think that Mountain Lion is the last major update to OS X or could there be another cat?

Where does OS XI come in to play?

There's always an actual Cat.

"Mac OS X 10.9 Kitty" :p

rekhyt
May 8, 2012, 11:07 AM
No.

Haha.

bedifferent
May 8, 2012, 12:08 PM
There's always an actual Cat.

"Mac OS X 10.9 Kitty" :p

In that case, they should have named 10.7 "Kitty Litter" :p

Zendokan
May 9, 2012, 04:30 AM
What a lot of people here don't remember is that when Mac OS X 10.0 came out a lot of (re)sellors used the "X" in the name more to make a connection that the new OS was UNIX based than that it was version "10" to attract new customers.

It was a salespitch that worked, because it sparked my interest (as a MS DOS hardliner) and also that of a lot of ITilliterated people because for them UNIX was this perfect working OS that was just too complex to operate themselfs.
(yes, non-ICT people used to believe that in the nineties and 00ties!)

Unfortunally the price was in that time too much to make the change to Apple hardware (and in all my ICT classes all the software was MS windows based).

So while for the Apple early users and hardliners the "X" stands for "10", for the most "older new customers" it stood for "averige Joe easy usable UNIX" and for the new customers it's just "Ex".

So until Apple Inc really changes the UI, "OS X" is here to stay for a long time, even if the UNIX underneath the UI changes completely with every version (which I don't believe it has or ever will).

BTW, the "." character in the versioning name makes the difference, so that 10.2.1 is smaller than 10.11.1 or with other words 10.2.1 = 10.02.1 = 10.002.1

radiogoober
May 9, 2012, 05:57 AM
In that case, they should have named 10.7 "Kitty Litter" :p

Haha!

Mak47
May 11, 2012, 12:43 AM
I think for OS XI we'll see a true hybridization of iOS and OS X. A single operating system for mobile devices and computers, the only real difference being the power that each piece of equipment can provide. Each device may have some UI differences, iPhone in particular, but will essentially run the same operating system.

When this happens, I'd bank on Apple dropping both the iOS and OS X names and starting with something completely new--that probably won't involve numbers.

Zendokan
May 11, 2012, 02:54 AM
I think for OS XI we'll see a true hybridization of iOS and OS X. A single operating system for mobile devices and computers, the only real difference being the power that each piece of equipment can provide. Each device may have some UI differences, iPhone in particular, but will essentially run the same operating system.

When this happens, I'd bank on Apple dropping both the iOS and OS X names and starting with something completely new--that probably won't involve numbers.

???

You do know that iOS is a port of OS X with iOS using SpringBoard as a UI and UIKit as its UI widget framework while OS X uses Finder as a UI and AppKit as its widget set.

It would be like a car manufacturor that makes a succesfull sedan uses the identical same parts to make a coupé where there are just some minor esthetic changes. If later they merge the coupé and the sedan line again, you would just end up with the sedan.

I really don't know if it's possible to merge Springboard/UIKit with Finder/AppKit and even if it would be possible it would only be a benefit for the portable iDevices.
Using a bluetooth mouse on an iPad would be a benefit (if it doesn't cut into MBA sales offcourse), but an iMac with a touchscreen would be hell.
Don't believe me: go to PC store, ask for the Dell desktop with touchscreen. After 5 minutes when the novelty works off you'll stop using the touchscreen. Ask the employees there how many they have sold, if they are honest it will be 1 or 0.

rrgjl
May 11, 2012, 02:18 PM
Well it's clear Apple is preparing itself for touch screen enabling on desktops and laptops. And there's probably some other features there that I'm not thinking of right now. Anyway, I'd say that a change like that; towards touch screens, would be the right time to introduce something like OS XI or something equivalent. I also don't believe that Apple will keep going with OS X as it is for the coming 10 years or so. I wouldn't be really suprised if they would do what they did with IOS either: kill the (visible) folder structure alltogether. They could also go much deeper with their multi-touch gesture stuff. All these kinds of features I'd find appropriate for a next major Mac OS release.

xgman
May 11, 2012, 03:33 PM
The editorial in the front of the latest MacWorld Magazine is pretty spot on. Apple should take note.

Nostromo
May 12, 2012, 01:07 PM
OS X, or, new and short, just X is such a strong branding I don't see the much weaker name XI coming up ever.

We'll have 10.9 10.10...

And when Apple rewrites the OS in a more distant future, it'll come up with a new naming scheme, like the switch from OS 9 to OS X. maybe it'll be A or ALPHA or the first letter of the Mayan alphabet or the name of an ancient Greek or Egyptian god ;)

ellaimac
May 18, 2012, 08:13 AM
It would go like this:

2012 = Mountain Lion 10.8 + iOS 6
2013 = iOs 7
2014 = Osx 10.9 + iOS 8
2015= iOs 9
2016 = Merged! iOS x

OS x every two years because 2009 = Snow Leopard then 2011 = Lion

I worked hard thinking and writing this on Notepad on my PC xD

Mad Mac Maniac
May 18, 2012, 08:40 AM
It would go like this:

2012 = Mountain Lion 10.8 + iOS 6
2013 = iOs 7
2014 = Osx 10.9 + iOS 8
2015= iOs 9
2016 = Merged! iOS x

OS x every two years because 2009 = Snow Leopard then 2011 = Lion

I worked hard thinking and writing this on Notepad on my PC xD

Would be plausible, but when Apple released ML beta, they announced they will be having yearly OS X updates, same as iOS. I don't see them immediately retracting that.

aaronvan
May 18, 2012, 08:46 AM
Plenty of cats remaining: Ocelot, Caracal, alley cat, Sylvester, Cat in the Hat, Catwomen...heck, they could go all the way to OS VXL. ;)

chiproop
May 23, 2012, 07:43 AM
I personally have a feeling the the X in OSX has become a letter over the last 10 years, and the version number will be the thing that keeps changing in number - i.e. OSX 11.0, OSX 12.0, etc...

Or they may just com up with a new line of animals to use :D

slapple
May 24, 2012, 02:12 PM
The next major release could be called iOSXI, or iOSXi to be cute.

ellaimac
May 28, 2012, 01:08 AM
The next major release could be called iOSXI, or iOSXi to be cute.

List of names:

iOS X
OS Xi ("i" is intended to be small)
AppleOS (Because this OS will run on all apple products)
AppOS (Because apple loves apps and we know it :D )

mrsir2009
May 28, 2012, 01:29 AM
I don't think we are going to see OS 11 until Apple decides to rewrite their OS again. I think OS X is here to stay for a long time. I've been wrong before though.

Yes. Classic Mac OS was retired because it was tired and dated, and everyone knew it at the time. However I don't think anyone reckons Mac OSX is tired and dated yet?

Bear
May 28, 2012, 06:44 AM
Plenty of cats remaining: Ocelot, Caracal, alley cat, Sylvester, Cat in the Hat, Catwomen...heck, they could go all the way to OS VXL. ;)Don't forget Felix the Cat. Of course after Mountain Lion, they could use The Lion King.

MisterK
Jun 10, 2012, 09:14 AM
The next huge change in Mac OS to happen within the next 1 or 2 years and I wouldn't be surprised if Mountain Lion was the last variant of OSX. I predict that Apple will continue to have two separate computer OSs – one for mobile and one for desktop (power users), though I do imagine that crossover will continue to occur (like launchpad). In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple released an easel touch iMac that had iOS in place of Dashboard, embedded right into OSX. I also do expect a third OS to happen in the living room, but that's a comment for another post.

OSX has reached a point of maturity where the tweaks are so minor that they won't garner the kinds of headlines or create the kind of excitement that Apple needs to expand their user base and move forward for the next 10 years. As much as Apple is focusing on iOS, they aren't going to give up entirely on expanding their computer market share. More money is more money. Switching from OSX to OSXI (or OS 11, or OS whatever) doesn't mean the "brain transplant" that OS 9 to OSX was, but it does mean a huge change to the OS.

Windows 8 is an interesting situation. While it will most likely be a disaster (too huge a paradigm shift for existing users – especially in business), it does feel like a fresh take on the OS. I think Apple is taking a wait and see approach to gauge just how far they can take their next desktop OS. That's not to say that OS 11 isn't already in the works... just that they haven't finalised the UI.

What I'd like to see is Apple radically changing what file management means and premtively providing simpler answers to current workflows like sub versioning, remote file management, etc. to allow their replacement. What we need are the solutions they provided but without any complexity. What would Mac OS look like if they started all over again and built with everything we now know about the cloud, iOSs success, style preference changes, possibly touch, human/computer psychology, Siri, IBM's Watson, security and biometrics, and search.... Because we knew a lot less about these when OS X was conceived.

Finally, I'd like to see what Apple has lined up after Aqua (or whatever our current variant is called). I like Windows 8 and credit Microsoft's boldness, but I don't think it's the future. I think Microsoft, with the good intentions of being current, threw out the baby with the bathwater. We have decades of research showing that a person is more likely to recognise a button if it looks like a button, rather than an outlined rectangle. There is a purpose to at least some of the skeumorphism. There is still value in icons for instantly finding information. Cutting off words (Zune OS) is not a clever typography.. it's lazy design that doesn't further any purpose. Apple needs to radically update Mac OS's look and feel without going trendy. They need an update that looks like it could feel fresh for the next 20 years.

JohnGrey
Jul 22, 2012, 06:44 PM
I agree with KnightWRX in his assertion that input paradigm is what differentiates, and will continue to differentiate, the function and ultimately the branding of the Apple personal computer and mobile varieties of OS. In fact, I find the integrationist idea of branding (differentiation based on delivery rather than on user interaction) to be absurd. The only way that you would ever have a true merging, and by extension reason to unify branding under a single marketing schema, was if you a had the transition of both platforms to a common interactive method, such as gestures.

Consolidation of branding between two products of dissimilar method of interaction would be a terrible idea for Apple. iOS is universally understood by the consumer to be Apple's mobile OS solution, which has a specific, stable, and popular means of interaction. If they were to re-brand OS X with a non-touch or hybrid IO implementation, all you would have is a bunch of consumers saying, "This is nothing like my iPhone. Why did they call it iOS?"

The entire question is just another variation the integrationist vs. specifist argument. My brother, who prefers integrationism, likes the idea of a single tool that fits most situations and does many things, even if it doesn't do them with any degree of excellence, while I like specifism, in that I prefer the cost of numerous tools that are perfectly suited to perform their task. There are times when integrationism works; there are times when it's a joke. The spork comes to mind.

thekeyring
Aug 18, 2012, 02:56 PM
They could just continue on...10.10, 10.11, etc.

Does no one pay attention in Maths class? 10.10 and 10.1 are the same thing. The 0 at the end has no value. Apple have already release Mac OS 10.1.

50548
Aug 18, 2012, 06:27 PM
I don't think we are going to see OS 11 until Apple decides to rewrite their OS again. I think OS X is here to stay for a long time. I've been wrong before though.

OS XI is gonna be iOS 8. ;)

mrkramer
Aug 18, 2012, 07:02 PM
Does no one pay attention in Maths class? 10.10 and 10.1 are the same thing. The 0 at the end has no value. Apple have already release Mac OS 10.1.

When differentiating software versions it does have value. Otherwise Mac OS X 10.4.10 would have been the same version as 10.4.1 which it wasn't.

Brad9893
Aug 18, 2012, 08:31 PM
Does no one pay attention in Maths class? 10.10 and 10.1 are the same thing. The 0 at the end has no value. Apple have already release Mac OS 10.1.

Does no one pay attention to things that have been discussed on this forum for years?

Did you think of reading this topic to see if this was discussed before you posted? Because it's been discussed and answered three times in this thread.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=14592812&postcount=87

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=14594029&postcount=89

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=14767030&postcount=117

For the 5,343,343rd time, Version numbers are not decimals!

kingweaver88
Aug 18, 2012, 08:43 PM
I don't see iOS and Mac OSX being integrated into a new OS... it doesnt make sense for the reasons others have already discussed. I do think that either 10.8 or 10.9 will be the last OSX... but thats only as far as the name and marketing go the next OS will most likely be based on OSX. But I could be wrong, they could also just have similar names such as iOS and iOS Pro

I foresee several ways this could go, it could be Mac OS 11, Mac OSXI, Mac OSXi (pronounced Ex eye), or the could phase out the mac branding entirely going with the "i" moniker for their computers, we already know they plan to phase out the Mac Pro so it wouldn't be a stretch to go back to iBook for laptops and then lets say iDesk for the iMac, and iBox for the mac mini... then they would be free to drop the Mac from the OS name. It just seems redundant to say "Apple Macintosh Macbook Pro 15 with Mac OSX 10.8" (I know no one would say it that way but you get the point). At this point apple is famous for being apple, "Macintosh" is just a vestigial brand name from days long gone.

It would be cleaner and therefore more inline with apples minimalist product and branding strategy to simplify things. For example, "Apple iBook 15 with iOS Pro 2.1" for a laptop, which would complement yet still differentiate from "Apple iPhone 6s with iOS 7.2" ... of course the two OS's would be very different just have similar names.

They could also drop he fancy model names and stick to years and size, since most of their products are on a 1 year timeline anyway. Example, "Apple iBook 2014 with iOS Pro 2.1" (for a 15 inch laptop), "Apple iBook Mini 2014 with iOS Pro 2.1" (for a 13 inch laptop), "Apple iBook Nano 2014 with iOS Pro 2.1"... then on the mobile side "Apple iPad 2014 with iOS 7.2" (for 10 inch iPad), "Apple iPad Mini 2014 with iOS 7.2" (7 inch iPad), and then just a single name for "Apple iPhone 2014 with iOS 7.2".

Of course they would have the branding of the devices and OS's separate so it would just be "Apple iBook Mini 2014". As far as individual specifications such as 32GB iPhone vs 64GB iPhone.. well its really not necessary to differentiate them from a branding standpoint... and iPhone is an iPhone even though their may be several different bin's for each model.

Some of these may sound silly and of course I am just shooting in the dark, but what I am getting at is this... I don't expect the technical aspects of iOS and Mac OS being integrated at all, but I definitely see the branding strategy being integrated. I also think you going to start seeing a more tightly controlled design language. Right now a Macbook doesn't resemble an iPhone in the slightest and an iPad only slightly resembles and iPhone, and the new iPad mini will more closely resemble the iPhone but not the Macbook. Apple is going to put this on lock down soon I can assure you of that. The reason the devices are different now may have had a research component to it, in other words "lets field some different design languages and see which ones are the most successful", at this point its time for them to start putting that knowledge to good use.

----------

Sorry that was loooooong, I got my Master's in Entertainment business from FullSail so I am pretty interested in marketing and branding strategies... my B.S. is in IT from FSU, so yea this kinda thing is what I live for and apple is a good company to study.

ivnj
Aug 18, 2012, 09:56 PM
By that time the mobile OS and the desktop OS will be one and the same, So I'd guess it'd be called iOS 8?

Or maybe "iOSx"

mrkramer
Aug 19, 2012, 12:40 AM
I don't see iOS and Mac OSX being integrated into a new OS... it doesnt make sense for the reasons others have already discussed. I do think that either 10.8 or 10.9 will be the last OSX... but thats only as far as the name and marketing go the next OS will most likely be based on OSX. But I could be wrong, they could also just have similar names such as iOS and iOS Pro


OS X is too strong of a brand for Apple to let go, iOS is based on OS X so they already are about as integrated as you can get practically between a computer and a smartphone OS. If they tried to integrate the UI more you would either end up with a horrible user experience on one or the other, or end up with an OS that doesn't do anything well.

Badrottie
Aug 19, 2012, 01:48 AM
Maybe they'll go with dogs

Mac OS XI 11.0 "Husky"

Husky is very ugly name…. :p I think Mac OS 11 "Rottweiler" :D

SlCKB0Y
Aug 19, 2012, 05:08 AM
By that time the mobile OS and the desktop OS will be one and the same, So I'd guess it'd be called iOS 8?

Rubbish. They won't completely converge whilst we are still using the current input methods.

There is no way to do this properly without compromising one, or both the user experiences.

thermodynamic
Aug 19, 2012, 04:31 PM
Not true. Not even close to true.

Is not "Puma" somewhat synonymous with "Mountain Lion"? And cougar...

thekeyring
Aug 19, 2012, 05:13 PM
When differentiating software versions it does have value. Otherwise Mac OS X 10.4.10 would have been the same version as 10.4.1 which it wasn't.

My eyes have been opened.

----------

Does no one pay attention to things that have been discussed on this forum for years?

Did you think of reading this topic to see if this was discussed before you posted? Because it's been discussed and answered three times in this thread.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=14592812&postcount=87

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=14594029&postcount=89

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=14767030&postcount=117

For the 5,343,343rd time, Version numbers are not decimals!

My eyes have been opened.

LeandrodaFL
Aug 23, 2012, 01:04 PM
Saying "O S Ten" is way faster then "O S E LE VEN" and this will influenciate apple keeping OS X for some time still..

paintersforms
Oct 14, 2012, 10:01 PM
Whenever they decide to make a switch, I hope they base the new OS on Plan 9 (http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/9.pdf). Seems much more in tune with the cloud and multiple gadgets/PCs.

marcusj0015
Oct 18, 2012, 01:48 AM
Whenever they decide to make a switch, I hope they base the new OS on Plan 9 (http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/9.pdf). Seems much more in tune with the cloud and multiple gadgets/PCs.

... The last release of Plan 9 was released a decade ago, and Apple could more easily upgrade the BSD base of OS X.

chumawumba
Oct 18, 2012, 05:13 PM
it will be a merge called iOSX

ThatGreekMacGuy
Oct 20, 2012, 04:26 PM
They could just continue on...10.10, 10.11, etc.

I dont think so. That would be silly. Then they could just keep going forever like 10.100,...,10.1000, you name it. For instance 10.10 is mathematically equal to 10.1 which was the 1st OS X software and Mountain Lion is the 8th as it's called OS X 10.8. So, according to human logic, after Mountain Lion, 10.9 will come out and after that BOOM... OS XII (whick is actually OS 11). So there you go!

grapes911
Oct 21, 2012, 07:32 AM
For instance 10.10 is mathematically equal to 10.1
Version numbers have never abided by mathematical rules, especially when it comes to trailing zeros. Many times it something like platform number X, release number Y, and build Z. (I don't know if Apple actually call them platform, release, build. I'm just speaking generically). Then it get's shorted to X.Y.Z. So no, 10.1 and 10.10 are not the same thing.


Edit: I had to look up an example: Apple released both 10.4.1 and 10.4.10.

simsaladimbamba
Oct 21, 2012, 07:39 AM
I dont think so. That would be silly. Then they could just keep going forever like 10.100,...,10.1000, you name it. For instance 10.10 is mathematically equal to 10.1 which was the 1st OS X software and Mountain Lion is the 8th as it's called OS X 10.8. So, according to human logic, after Mountain Lion, 10.9 will come out and after that BOOM... OS XII (whick is actually OS 11). So there you go!

10.0 was the first Mac OS X version, 10.8 is the ninth Mac OS X version.

And as mentioned countless times before, 10.1 is not the same as 10.10 when speaking of software versions, otherwise Mac OS X 10.4.1 would have been the same as 10.4.10, and Tiger got up to 10.4.11.

paintersforms
Oct 21, 2012, 12:58 PM
... The last release of Plan 9 was released a decade ago, and Apple could more easily upgrade the BSD base of OS X.

Right, but Plan 9 still newer technology, at least in terms of the ideas behind it. I remember when Apple used to advertise about all the old code in Windows, but you can trace OS X's roots all the way back to 1969!

Anyway, I take your point. Technically, cars are 19th century tech, so maybe once an industry matures, there's no need to reinvent the wheel. I'm a fan of Plan 9's philosophy, though-- clustering devices to create a system rather than having a bunch of different systems talking to each other. It seems like an OS for the cloud.

Brad9893
Oct 22, 2012, 04:59 PM
I dont think so. That would be silly. Then they could just keep going forever like 10.100,...,10.1000, you name it. For instance 10.10 is mathematically equal to 10.1 which was the 1st OS X software and Mountain Lion is the 8th as it's called OS X 10.8. So, according to human logic, after Mountain Lion, 10.9 will come out and after that BOOM... OS XII (whick is actually OS 11). So there you go!

People really need to read threads before they reply to them...perhaps what they want to say has already been addressed before (like 10 times)?

eieiosoftware
Oct 25, 2012, 09:50 AM
I think the moniker "OSX" has become what "MacOS" used to be. It used to be MacOS was the name of the OS, and the version number followed, for example MacOS 9.2 or Mac OS X. Somewhere along the line, OSX became the name of the OS, not just it's iteration denotation. Whereas MacOS used to appear in a sentence with Windows, now it's "Windows or OSX" The trailing number has become the only denotation for version number. So we get OSX 10.8.1, which is spoken "OS ten ten point eight point one." For this reason, they could keep OSX as the primary base name of the OS, much like Windows is just Windows with different versions (vista, 7, XP)

So, I believe the next major version will be called OSX 11, OS11, or i11, but not the ridiculous OSXI.

That being said, as long as we keep speaking "OSX" as "O S Ten" and not "O S eX" then OSX 11 will look OK, but will sound awkward when spoken.

For this reason alone, I think the best bet is on OS11 or i11.

Maserati7200
Jun 30, 2013, 08:06 AM
When Apple announced Mountain Lion, they said they'd start a new yearly cycle on OS X, the same yearly cycle that iOS sees.

Mountain Lion will be the last release under the alias "OS X". From then on, iOS will replace OS X as the name, and will be on the exact same cycle as iOS is now. iOS will run on your Mac, iPad, iPhone and iPod touch.

However, just because OS X will be called iOS, doesn't mean it'll lose all of its OS X appearance.

iOS 6 won't be a significant upgrade this year, but iOS 7 will. iOS 7 will get rid of the application grid that is the current user interface and introduce likes of widgets and so on. iOS 7 will also be the first release for the Macintosh.

From then on, each iOS release will be yearly and will be released for the Mac, iPad, iPhone and iPod touch at the same time.

iOS 7 will be released summer 2013, and it'll be a huge merge of OS X and iOS in terms of user interface.

HAHAHAHA LOOKS LIKE YOU WERE DEAD WRONG!!!!

All of these people saying that the two systems will merge anytime soon, are talking out of their ass. OSX and iOS will remain separate for a long time, assuming they will merge at all. You people were saying since 2009 (when the iPad rumors were in full swing) that the iPhone OS and OSX will merge either A) around the time the unreleased tablet gets introduced or B) a year or two after. Well I'm happy you people were wrong and not running apple.

I agree with a lot said here, OSX will be around for a long time. If and when (and it's a big if) OS 11 comes out, it will be something revolutionary, and it won't be called XI. Either they will call it 11 or some other naming scheme.

Kilamite
Jun 30, 2013, 08:36 AM
All of these people saying that the two systems will merge anytime soon, are talking out of their ass.

Underneath they're pretty much the same sort of thing. I still believe Apple will merge them for marketing reasons at some point in the near future.

MisterMe
Jun 30, 2013, 11:09 AM
Underneath they're pretty much the same sort of thing. I still believe Apple will merge them for marketing reasons at some point in the near future.That makes absolutely no sense. Apple does not market iOS as a separate product. Although it is only $20 US, Apple sells OS X as a separate product for Macintosh owners. iOS is part of your iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, and TV. It is aimed at everyone--Mac users, Windows users, Linux users, and people who do not own a traditional computer. From a purely marketing point of view, to "merge" iOS and OS X would signal to everyone that Apple is turning its back on non-Mac customers.

MacSince1990
Jul 11, 2013, 09:17 AM
They really made the change stand out by switching from numbers to the letter X (yes, it's still a number, I know), and started using cats for code names (actually this came later and was back filled). They started a trend.


Actually it didn't come later, cheetah and puma were just internal codenames that later caught on, they weren't made up ex post facto.

Year old thread etc.

thekeyring
Aug 21, 2013, 11:46 AM
Yeah... Not only will portable devices have the power (heck, we already do), but feature-wise, both OSs are getting more alike. We'll hit a point where it might be pointless to keep them separate.

Other than iOS devices are touch-screen and Macs are designed for mouse. Their apps included.

drewblay
Dec 5, 2013, 01:21 PM
which is spoken "OS ten ten point eight point one."

I have worked in many Mac environments, I have never, ever, heard anyone pronounce OS X as "OS Ten". It has always been pronounced "OS Ex". The only time I have ever heard any one saying it should be "OS ten" is on MacRumors.

Solomani
Dec 5, 2013, 01:36 PM
Husky is very ugly name…. :p I think Mac OS 11 "Rottweiler" :D

Mac OS 11.0 Cockerpoodle

krixtian
Feb 3, 2014, 12:40 AM
They could just continue on...10.10, 10.11, etc.

Umm, So you're telling me that 10.10 is a real number? They have to release 11 xi is only right

simsaladimbamba
Feb 3, 2014, 04:36 PM
Umm, So you're telling me that 10.10 is a real number? They have to release 11 xi is only right

Version numbering of applications differs from mathematical numbers. And 10.1 is not the same as 10.10 when it comes to that version numbering, look at some browser or video transcoder application versions to see that.

It has also already been explained numerous times in this quite older thread, thus a resurrection might not have been necessary with capable reading comprehension.

Rodster
Feb 4, 2014, 11:56 AM
I have worked in many Mac environments, I have never, ever, heard anyone pronounce OS X as "OS Ten". It has always been pronounced "OS Ex". The only time I have ever heard any one saying it should be "OS ten" is on MacRumors.

Hmm that's odd because when I bought my very first Mac (Snow iMac) in 2001 it came with OS 9 (Classic) and OS X (1st edition). All the Mac reps when they had actual Mac reps at their store at CompUSA referred to it as OS X (Ten). Other Mac shops i've visited have referred to it as OS X (Ten).

The Best Buys I go to as well that have Mac reps refer to it as Ten. That's how I always referred to it as well especially since I came from Mac Classic (9) to OS X (Ten)

iMacFarlane
Feb 4, 2014, 12:02 PM
I think the moniker "OSX" has become what "MacOS" used to be. It used to be MacOS was the name of the OS, and the version number followed, for example MacOS 9.2 or Mac OS X. Somewhere along the line, OSX became the name of the OS, not just it's iteration denotation. Whereas MacOS used to appear in a sentence with Windows, now it's "Windows or OSX" The trailing number has become the only denotation for version number. So we get OSX 10.8.1, which is spoken "OS ten ten point eight point one." For this reason, they could keep OSX as the primary base name of the OS, much like Windows is just Windows with different versions (vista, 7, XP)

So, I believe the next major version will be called OSX 11, OS11, or i11, but not the ridiculous OSXI.

That being said, as long as we keep speaking "OSX" as "O S Ten" and not "O S eX" then OSX 11 will look OK, but will sound awkward when spoken.

For this reason alone, I think the best bet is on OS11 or i11.

xiOS

talmy
Feb 4, 2014, 12:30 PM
Hmm that's odd because when I bought my very first Mac (Snow iMac) in 2001 it came with OS 9 (Classic) and OS X (1st edition). All the Mac reps when they had actual Mac reps at their store at CompUSA referred to it as OS X (Ten). Other Mac shops i've visited have referred to it as OS X (Ten).

The Best Buys I go to as well that have Mac reps refer to it as Ten. That's how I always referred to it as well especially since I came from Mac Classic (9) to OS X (Ten)

Going back to Steve Job's announcement of OS X, he very clearly calls it "O S Ten".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko4V3G4NqII

mrlegoboy092
Feb 23, 2014, 05:39 AM
They could just continue on...10.10, 10.11, etc.

No. That is like saying that 10.24 is bigger than 10.6

Fishrrman
Feb 23, 2014, 10:04 AM
[[ When does OS X end and OS XI begin? ]]

After OS X version 10.99 is released ?

talmy
Feb 23, 2014, 10:28 AM
No. That is like saying that 10.24 is bigger than 10.6

As has been pointed out repeatedly, the period is not a decimal point but a separator. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning

Also Tiger went all the way to 10.4.11 and didn't go 10.4.9 to 10.5.0

mrkramer
Feb 23, 2014, 09:54 PM
No. That is like saying that 10.24 is bigger than 10.6

In software versions which are not decimal it is.

Atomic Wasp
Mar 11, 2014, 01:52 PM
I think colour is coming back to OS X.