PDA

View Full Version : os 11


jonapete2001
Oct 28, 2003, 01:19 AM
I know this is pointless and well into the future, but i just wanted to get opinions on how long this numbering sceme will keep up. How many more 10.x's do you guys think apple will come out with before they call it os 11 or XI. Does anyone think they will go all the way to os 10.9?

mac15
Oct 28, 2003, 01:31 AM
well 10.4 and 10.5 are rumored, so I'd say we've got a long tinme to go and OS X is suppose to take Apple into the next decade as Steve said

MacBandit
Oct 28, 2003, 01:39 AM
I think they will take it all the way. It's really a mistake when people call these point releases in the sense of point releases from the 90's. Point releases are now 10.x.x not 10.x.

I consider 10.2 and 10.3 both to be nearly full version updates maybe on the scale of a .5 version.

jonapete2001
Oct 28, 2003, 01:47 AM
if they did go all the way to 10.9, with the 10.x's almost being completly new versions, why do you think they would keep the naming sceme. Do you think it is because os"X" looks or sounds "cool". Is it a marketing tecnique.

One draw back that could arrise with the use of say 10.7 would many people not as enthusiastic as mac rumors readers is that they may think that it is just a minor upgrade and shy away. If they would switch aroung 10.5 they could avoid all that, personally i think that they should change the numbering sceme right after or before longhorn is released.

what do you people think?

manitoubalck
Oct 28, 2003, 01:48 AM
When OS XI/11 comes out it will more than likley be completley 64-Bit, for this to occur the intire apple line will need to be running G5's, That won't happen for some time.

Rower_CPU
Oct 28, 2003, 01:54 AM
It's been a 4 year journey from G4s first introing in PowerMacs to G4s in iBooks, BUT

Apple's got IBM producing chips now...my completely unscientific analysis puts Apple at an all G5 product line in 2 years, paving the way for a full 64-bit OS in late 2005.

But who knows...

MacBandit
Oct 28, 2003, 01:55 AM
Originally posted by jonapete2001
if they did go all the way to 10.9, with the 10.x's almost being completly new versions, why do you think they would keep the naming sceme. Do you think it is because os"X" looks or sounds "cool". Is it a marketing tecnique.

One draw back that could arrise with the use of say 10.7 would many people not as enthusiastic as mac rumors readers is that they may think that it is just a minor upgrade and shy away. If they would switch aroung 10.5 they could avoid all that, personally i think that they should change the numbering sceme right after or before longhorn is released.

what do you people think?

If Apple keeps pushing the publicity buttons on there new .x releases each year then I don't see popularity falling off before we reach 11. Also I see each .x release taking a bit longer then the last as we are reaching a point where the optimizations in the system are fairly complete and it's just a matter of new features at this point. I don't think we'll see 10.4 until early 2005.

tomf87
Oct 28, 2003, 05:53 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
It's been a 4 year journey from G4s first introing in PowerMacs to G4s in iBooks, BUT

Apple's got IBM producing chips now...my completely unscientific analysis puts Apple at an all G5 product line in 2 years, paving the way for a full 64-bit OS in late 2005.

But who knows...

I'd think that they'll have a 64-bit OS released sooner than that. My theory is just package it in a new pack similar to XP or Linux, or take the Solaris way and just keep 32- and 64-bit packages on the same CD. With Solaris, you can change whether you boot into 32-bit or 64-bit without reinstalling. Now that would be a good thing.

But if the XServer goes G5, then they could go 64-bit there to help support even more users due to increase memory and bus bandwidth.

EDIT:

Mine is unscientific as well. You could go farther and call it a guess. :)

MacsRgr8
Oct 28, 2003, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by MacBandit
If Apple keeps pushing the publicity buttons on there new .x releases each year then I don't see popularity falling off before we reach 11. Also I see each .x release taking a bit longer then the last as we are reaching a point where the optimizations in the system are fairly complete and it's just a matter of new features at this point. I don't think we'll see 10.4 until early 2005.

I agree.
Mac OS X 10.x updates have become less frequent since 10.1 was released. It's been over a year since Jaguar was released, and as Jaguar was the first real 100% usable version of OS X, Panther could be waited for quite patiently.
Stability, speed, and hardware support are hardly issues anymore. What we now expect in the future releases of OS X is more features, extra coolness, gaming extras (OpenGL 2.0), and whatever fun stuff Apple will think of next. Its good to see that Panther features like "Expose", "FileVault" and stuff are fun, handy, and so on, but not must-haves. 10.2 did have must-haves that 10.1 didn't have.

Mac OS X is gr8. Jaguar is super, Panther even better.... what will 10.4 bring???

howard
Oct 28, 2003, 09:20 AM
i think they'll keep the 10.x etc for a long long time, and to get around people thinking its just a small upgrade they advertise at as "jaguar" or "panther" i'd say os 11 is about 10 years away..and who knows what they'll call it then...maybe they'll get off the numbers and call it os 2013 haha that sounds kinda stupid... or maybe they'll go to fish instead of cats....new os 11.2 codenamed tuna hehe followed by salmon then the final dolphin.

Macco
Oct 28, 2003, 06:23 PM
I say they'll release OS 11 in 2006 or whenever Longhorn is released so that they'll have a full-version upgrade to go against whatever Microsoft offers.

Sun Baked
Oct 28, 2003, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by Macco
I say they'll release OS 11 in 2006 or whenever Longhorn is released so that they'll have a full-version upgrade to go against whatever Microsoft offers. This was a "full" version upgrade, Apple is just sticking with OS X to leverage the "product" name recognition.

Apple is doing quite a bit to modernize the original NeXT operation system, and have done quite a bit already.

Still a ways to go... especially since Apple is trying to push a bunch of changes into the various open source projects Apple is working with.

idea_hamster
Oct 29, 2003, 03:58 PM
Current: OS X
Next : OS •
Then: OS Zen

MacBandit
Oct 29, 2003, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by idea_hamster
Current: OS X
Next : OS •
Then: OS Zen

That's the best idea I have heard of yet.

ebow
Oct 29, 2003, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by idea_hamster
Current: OS X
Next : OS •
Then: OS Zen

Very clever. :D

I had to remind myself that it's "OS-Ten" and not "OS-Ex" (as my lazy self calls it) to fully appreciate that.

mgargan1
Oct 30, 2003, 04:43 PM
i think it's funny that they named this panther because there really isn't an animal named "panther" rather, it's just a black jaguar or black leopard. And there is a difference between leopards and jaguars, so for apple to call their OS Panther is kinda a misnomer. But i guess apple's naming scheme is more geared towards fruit, not animals.
But I do wonder what names will be next, i remember reading somewhere that apple copyrighted the names of a couple more big cats... 10.4 will probably be called leopard, then they'll prolly have tiger, and lion... but i do think leopard will be next on the list... and that's just my guess..

MacBandit
Oct 30, 2003, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by mgargan1
i think it's funny that they named this panther because there really isn't an animal named "panther" rather, it's just a black jaguar or black leopard. And there is a difference between leopards and jaguars, so for apple to call their OS Panther is kinda a misnomer. But i guess apple's naming scheme is more geared towards fruit, not animals.
But I do wonder what names will be next, i remember reading somewhere that apple copyrighted the names of a couple more big cats... 10.4 will probably be called leopard, then they'll prolly have tiger, and lion... but i do think leopard will be next on the list... and that's just my guess..

There was a huge multi-page thread all about Apples future names and about Panthers etc., etc..

I just did a search for it. Here it is.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33151

SiliconAddict
Oct 31, 2003, 01:08 AM
BAH! Who cares if its .X or 11, 12, or pi. I just like the big cat names. I just hope when Longhorn comes out they name whatever OS goes head to head with it Sabertooth. Imagine the headlines:
Sabertooth rips Longhorn a new one.
That's a MacAddict mag cover to frame. :D

Iíll miss the big cat names when the eventually do get rid of them. Iím sorry but Cheetah, Jaguar, Panther, and potentially Lynx, Cougar, and Tiger are just cool.

PS- Apple need to reserve the name Ocelot. They didnít do that when they filed those trade marks earlier this year. OS X: Ocelot. Just sort of flows off the tongue. :D

MIADolFan
Nov 1, 2003, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by mgargan1
i think it's funny that they named this panther because there really isn't an animal named "panther" rather, it's just a black jaguar or black leopard. And there is a difference between leopards and jaguars, so for apple to call their OS Panther is kinda a misnomer.

Not all panthers are black. The Florida Panther almost looks like the female Mountain Lion. Very close. It is a light brown color and a VERY RARE animal.

You are right about no animal is scientifically called a Panther. Panthers are a variety of the Puma.

http://www.panther.state.fl.us/

http://www.floridapanther.org/panther-facts.htm

ahunter3
Nov 1, 2003, 05:32 PM
MacBandit:I think they will take it all the way. It's really a mistake when people call these point releases in the sense of point releases from the 90's. Point releases are now 10.x.x not 10.x.

Au contraire, it is the modern version-numbering scheme (in most places) where you see version-number inflation taking place.

System 6 only spanned the range from 6.0 to 6.0.8, never even making it to 6.1. System 7 slid up the scale a bit more rapidly, going from 7.0 to 7.0.1 to 7.1, debuted on the PowerPC with 7.2(?) shortly replaced with 7.5, which incremented it's way to 7.5.5 before the final 7, 7.6, deposed it. MacOS 8, which in many ways was just late System 7 with nicer GUI and a multitasking Finder, arrived with more fanfare than readiness, and its bug-fix release, which should have been 8.0.1, was released as 8.1, which in turn was replaced with 8.5, another buggy system whose insects were squashed with the nice and stable 8.6. Which should have been 8.5.1. Except that 8.5 should have been 8.2, there was no quantum leaping going on there, which would make 8.6 into 8.2.1. Except that 8.1 should have been 8.0.1, so 8.5 would have been 8.1, making 8.6 at this point logically named 8.1.1. Except that MacOS 8 should have been System 7.7....well, you get the idea.

MacOS 9 sure wasn't a quantum leap either. Call it, I dunno, how about System 7.9, that feels about right.

Dont' even get me started on Photoshop (excuse me, 8??), FileMaker (6??), Bryce (oh please)... version inflation everywhere you look.

Frankly I'm very happy to see Panther coming out as 10.3 and not MacOS 13 or something.

skymaXimus
Nov 2, 2003, 01:42 AM
Originally posted by ahunter3 \Dont' even get me started on Photoshop (excuse me, 8??), FileMaker (6??), Bryce (oh please)... version inflation everywhere you look.
[/B]
You forgot the king of version inflation ... AOL. What the heck is up w/ their versions!? We added three new emoticons into email, its time for a new version.
(I do not, and will never, use AOL)

SiliconAddict
Nov 2, 2003, 02:25 AM
Originally posted by skymaXimus
You forgot the king of version inflation ... AOL. What the heck is up w/ their versions!? We added three new emoticons into email, its time for a new version.
(I do not, and will never, use AOL)

Its called competition with MSN. You see the brilliant marketing people believe that you squat out a new version of AOHELL you can then advertise all over the place

*Monster Truck racing voice* NEW NEW NEW!! FOR 2004444444!!!! AOL 10.0!!!!!! Get it todaaaaaaaaay!! half offffffff!!! Only 20 BUCKS!!! Children half off. oops sorry wrong commercial. ;)

matthew_goldin
Nov 2, 2003, 10:58 AM
I think that they might go all the way to 10.9 but on the other hand, Apple never came out with a 10.2.9. They just skipped it and went stright to 10.3. It is all pretty confusing. I suppose if they wanted to the could create a 10.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1

dracoleb
Nov 2, 2003, 09:16 PM
on the topic of version numbers, Netscape never had a version 5. It went straight from 4 to 6

revenuee
Nov 2, 2003, 09:56 PM
Originally posted by mgargan1
i think it's funny that they named this panther because there really isn't an animal named "panther" rather, it's just a black jaguar or black leopard. And there is a difference between leopards and jaguars, so for apple to call their OS Panther is kinda a misnomer. But i guess apple's naming scheme is more geared towards fruit, not animals.
But I do wonder what names will be next, i remember reading somewhere that apple copyrighted the names of a couple more big cats... 10.4 will probably be called leopard, then they'll prolly have tiger, and lion... but i do think leopard will be next on the list... and that's just my guess..

hmm panther a black jaguar... could explain the black packaging... 10.2 as a different version that being 10.3

just like panther just being a different "version" of a jaguar

(yes i read the post about not all panthers being black - but many people think generally think black panther, and some pink :D )

:rolleyes:

Mord
Nov 3, 2003, 11:30 AM
what the hell is longhorn?

whocares
Nov 3, 2003, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by Hector
what the hell is longhorn?

whocares
Nov 3, 2003, 11:59 AM
Oh, and it's also M$ 'up-and-coming' OS in 2006 :rolleyes:

iChan
Dec 15, 2003, 11:35 PM
I bet a Panther could kill a longhorn

Counterfit
Dec 15, 2003, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by SiliconAddict
BAH! Who cares if its .X or 11, 12, or pi. OS 10.? now shipping! hmmm, maybe if they release 10.3.2 as 10.3.1.4....

MacBandit
Dec 16, 2003, 12:45 AM
Originally posted by iChan
I bet a Panther could kill a longhorn

Hahaha, maybe a very old and sick one.

One thing is for sure a Panther the animal and the system is surely sleeker, more stream lined, more nimble, and just has a lot less fat.

ITR 81
Dec 16, 2003, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by Rower_CPU
It's been a 4 year journey from G4s first introing in PowerMacs to G4s in iBooks, BUT

Apple's got IBM producing chips now...my completely unscientific analysis puts Apple at an all G5 product line in 2 years, paving the way for a full 64-bit OS in late 2005.

But who knows...

I would think what would happen is in 05' Apple will launch the 64 bit OS and it will still release a upgrade for this 32 bit OS as well to keep everyone happy for next few yrs and allow them to all buy new G5 products.

whooleytoo
Dec 16, 2003, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by ahunter3
MacBanditSystem 6 only spanned the range from 6.0 to 6.0.8, never even making it to 6.1. System 7 slid up the scale a bit more rapidly, going from 7.0 to 7.0.1 to 7.1, debuted on the PowerPC with 7.2(?) shortly replaced with 7.5, which incremented it's way to 7.5.5 before the final 7, 7.6, deposed it. MacOS 8, which in many ways was just late System 7 with nicer GUI and a multitasking Finder, arrived with more fanfare than readiness, and its bug-fix release, which should have been 8.0.1, was released as 8.1, which in turn was replaced with 8.5, another buggy system whose insects were squashed with the nice and stable 8.6. Which should have been 8.5.1. Except that 8.5 should have been 8.2, there was no quantum leaping going on there, which would make 8.6 into 8.2.1. Except that 8.1 should have been 8.0.1, so 8.5 would have been 8.1, making 8.6 at this point logically named 8.1.1. Except that MacOS 8 should have been System 7.7....well, you get the idea.

Wow, you certainly put in the research!

Chances are, there's an abortive attempt at a next generation Apple OS for every gap in your version list above! Like the "original" MacOS 8 (Copland), Gershwin, Taligent Pink etc..etc..

niter
Dec 16, 2003, 10:11 AM
Somebody probably has said this before but could the X have to do with the fact that X is the Roman number for 10?

benixau
Dec 16, 2003, 11:45 AM
Come the end of the OSX moniker we could see something like the following:

MacOS T.0 MacOS T.1
MacOS E.0 MacOS E.1
MacOS SJRAKBGA.0 MacOS SJRAKBGA.1

the T and E come from neXt - the next letter in either direction and:
SJRAKBGA - Steve Jobs Rules And Kicks Bill Gates A$$

MacBandit
Dec 16, 2003, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by niter
Somebody probably has said this before but could the X have to do with the fact that X is the Roman number for 10?

The X IS the Roman numeral for 10. Thus Mac OSX is the same as Mac OS 10.:rolleyes:

Felix_the_Mac
Dec 16, 2003, 04:06 PM
My explanation:

The operating system name is Mac OS X

The Version is 10.3.1

Therefore even when the time comes to increment the major version number it will still be Max OS X. eg Mac OS X 11.1

If you think about it, previously the OS name was Max OS and now it is Mac OS X.

I say the X represents the Unix core and it was a happy coincedence that X is also the Roman numeral for ten.

MacsRgr8
Dec 16, 2003, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by Felix_the_Mac

I say the X represents the Unix core and it was a happy coincedence that X is also the Roman numeral for ten.

I thought about it exactly the same way.

dukemeiser
Dec 16, 2003, 08:53 PM
Why can't they just go on to 10.10? or 10.11, 10.12, 10.13?

MacBandit
Dec 17, 2003, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by dukemeiser
Why can't they just go on to 10.10? or 10.11, 10.12, 10.13?

They can but by that time OS 10 will be old and it will be time for a new marketing campaign.

JFreak
Dec 17, 2003, 02:23 AM
oh yes, it's all about marketing. when they decide the X name is at the end of the road, they will name the os differently. but basically they may want to wait for something REALLY new and mind-blowing to justify the name change.

in the mean time this current versioning scheme is ok. we can easily have a 10.567.392 if they don't want to change the name. that only means it's a version 567.392 of their X operating system. that said, it makes more sence to think about os X as a completely new system of which version is 3.1 currently. that is easy to understand, isn't it?

Felix_the_Mac
Dec 17, 2003, 06:34 AM
Originally posted by JFreak
it makes more sence to think about os X as a completely new system of which version is 3.1 currently. that is easy to understand, isn't it?

Easy to understand yes.
However in labelling terms you have gone from OS X v10 to OS X v3.

You'll never covince the marketing guys to do that.

whooleytoo
Dec 17, 2003, 06:49 AM
Originally posted by Felix_the_Mac
Easy to understand yes.
However in labelling terms you have gone from OS X v10 to OS X v3.

You'll never covince the marketing guys to do that.

Maybe that's why they're using the cat names; so they can switch the numbering scheme easier.

MacBandit
Dec 17, 2003, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by Felix_the_Mac
Easy to understand yes.
However in labelling terms you have gone from OS X v10 to OS X v3.

You'll never covince the marketing guys to do that.

He's not saying that they should switch the number scheme. He's saying that that IS what the version number means in reality. We are at version 3.1 of a brand new system. Thus 10.3.1. The system is 10 the version is 3.1. They already number it that way.

Felix_the_Mac
Dec 17, 2003, 04:20 PM
MacBandit:

Thats not what it says on my PB.

About this Mac:

Mac OS X
Version 10.3.1

MacBandit
Dec 17, 2003, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by Felix_the_Mac
MacBandit:

Thats not what it says on my PB.

About this Mac:

Mac OS X
Version 10.3.1

No I realize that. The system is called Mac OS X. The system number is 10 and the version number is 3.1. All we're saying is that is the way to look at it not that that is the way it is.