That'd be kind of sloppy.
I really don't see Apple getting rid of their computer line anytime soon. Like you said, even though it only makes up, what, 10% of their bottom line, that's still a huge chunk of healthy profits. Just because they're not making as much as their iDevices, that doesn't mean they should ditch it tomorrow and only chase the most profitable part of their lineup. They'd end up losing a ton of money doing that.
So was OS9.
Why is that those - and there seems to be plenty of them - who complain about 10.10 being (mathematically) the same as 10.1 appear to be quite happy with 10.9.2. Unless the rules of maths have changed recently, you can't have 2 decimal points in a number
When OS X was first released didn't Phil Schiller say it would be the OS for the next 10-15 years? With an initial release of March 24, 2001 we're nearing the 15 year mark. So what's next? Is there much life left in OS X? I'm a big Apple fan and not trolling at all.
That's what a mountain lion is...a cougar. Hahaha
This. Namelessness was good enough for Apple's OS up until 10.2 Jaguar (Cheetah and Puma were never used as branding). I refer to releases as '10.x' rather than '[cat name]', and 'Mavericks' makes me think of James Garner and Tom Cruise rather than Cali surf dude coolness.Why does OSX need names?
Why does OSX need names? Isn't that just a way to confuse folks? Numbers seem so much clearer, as they immediately communicate the relationship between one version and the next, even to newbies.
I really hate the arrogant California ego-centrism.
Queue the song 'Take California' from the Propellerheads.
Update: Link to 1st iPod Ad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mo-2aDs8160
I love that you have had that account for 10 years but never posted until today.
The following should probably be avoided...(A list can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proper_names_of_stars )