Mac OS Y

Discussion in 'macOS' started by MentalFabric, May 29, 2005.

  1. MentalFabric macrumors 6502

    MentalFabric

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    #1
    I swear when the first rendition of Mac OS X was about to be released I heard talk of "Mac OS Y" which had already been planned as the next really major release of an apple OS at the end of X's lifespan. Are there any rumours around based on what happened to this? Or does anyone even remember talk of it… I can't find anything in google…
     
  2. Vader macrumors 65816

    Vader

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #2
    That doesn't seem right, because the X is just the roman numeral for 10, which is the OS number.

    I don't think Y is even a roman numeral.
     
  3. Patch^ macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Location:
    Great Britain
    #3
    i havent heard anything about Mac OS Y and it seems very unlikely, because the Mac OS X refers to the Roman Numeral X, which means 10. However im sure apple will probably find a cool way to pronounce OS 11 lol.
     
  4. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #4
    i hope we do not see OS Y which i doubt because x=10 but i hope we do not see OS 11, but a new name for it , not a number
     
  5. MentalFabric thread starter macrumors 6502

    MentalFabric

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    #5
    That's what I was thinking but I think it was just a name given to it as a temporary indicator of the next version along the line… though come to think of it OS XI seems almost as unlikely…
     
  6. RacerX macrumors 65832

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #6
    As Mac OS X is pronounced "Mac OS 10", I doubt that you'll find anything "real" about a Mac OS Y.

    Usually the people who talk about Mac OS "X" read about first.

    The first time I heard about Mac OS X was in 1998 at WWDC were all the speaker were saying "Mac OS 10".

    :rolleyes:

    So anyone talking about Mac OS Y most likely have little or no connection with Apple or the Mac community.
     
  7. biohazard6969 macrumors 6502a

    biohazard6969

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Location:
    toronto canada
    #7
    yea....OS XI doesn't rele sound too great :p
     
  8. topgunn macrumors 65816

    topgunn

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2004
    Location:
    Texas
  9. MentalFabric thread starter macrumors 6502

    MentalFabric

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2004
    #9
    I think the article was in macworld way back when, and was about what would come after OS X so that would be out
     
  10. RacerX macrumors 65832

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #10
    It should be noted that Apple changed their version numbering practice to keep using Mac OS X as the product name.

    Had Apple stayed with how they had been moving up in version numbers prior to Mac OS X, then 10.2 would have been 10.5, 10.3 would have been 11.0 and 10.4 would have been 11.5.

    As long as "10" is part of the product name, they'll keep using 10.x for the version numbers.

    :rolleyes:

    Also, it should be noted that version numbers are not mathematical numbers. The next version after 10.9 doesn't have to be 11.0, it can be 10.10.

    And as Apple has said that there'll be a slow down in the number of paid upgrades in the future, don't be surprised to see 10.4.14 released before we get 10.5.0.
     
  11. Tilmitt macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2005
  12. Sirus The Virus macrumors 6502a

    Sirus The Virus

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Location:
    Texas
  13. mad jew Moderator emeritus

    mad jew

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Location:
    Adelaide, Australia
    #14
    :D I thought this was a potential switcher asking why he should make the change.
     
  14. MisterMe macrumors G4

    MisterMe

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    USA
    #15
    topgunn is correct. There is serious speculation that MacOS X 11 will be the next full version after MacOS X 10. The reasoning goes that by the time that MacOS X 10 has run its course, the "X" will be so engrained that most users will have forgotten that it was supposed to be "10" in Roman numerals. This line of reasoning continues that "MacOS X" really stands for "Mac OpenStep eXtended," which it is.
     
  15. iMeowbot macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #16
    The OS version numbers have been increasing at a traditional rate. the current Darwin release is 8.1, marching right along from the numbers started by NeXT 20 years ago. The OS X version numbers boil down to marketing.

    [Edit: of course, none of this applies if you use Uncyclopedia as a reference.]
     
  16. puckhead193 macrumors G3

    puckhead193

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Location:
    NY
    #17
    I would have thought XX would be next then XXX. It will offer free peep shows :rolleyes: ;)
     
  17. slooksterPSV macrumors 68030

    slooksterPSV

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    Nowheresville
    #18
    I think people are confused with namings of products like Windows XP - I'd see Windows eXPert from that, where as Mac OS X - OS eXtended even though its nothing in relation its kind of a marketing trick to making the user buy different items. So I think that Mac OS Next Gen should have a relation to the products like this: from mac OS 1.0 to mac os next gen, they've had oh lets just say 5000 (I know there is more) + 150 new features so lets call it
    Mac OS NG5150X
    ^ name of OS
    _____^ saying its an OS
    ________^Next generation 5150 new features since os 1.0 predecessor is X
    Mac OS NG5150X
     
  18. BornAgainMac macrumors 603

    BornAgainMac

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Location:
    Florida Resident
    #19
    "Mac OS Y" will never happen because it will sound like this.... Mac OS Why?
     
  19. TrenchMouth macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2002
    #20
    This has got me thinking. What would come after X? Not in terms of a name, but in terms of a major upgrade to the operating system as a whole.

    The time span between 7 and 8 was rather long (according to my memory) but the span between 8 and 9 was not. I also don't think the upgrade from 8 to 9 was on the same level as 9 to X. I think the core of X is here to stay for quite some time, and my imagination with these things is not good enough to see a need to move beyond what we currently have. Something must be going on down at R&D though...There is always something going on down there. :cool:
     
  20. Link macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Location:
    Connecticut
    #21
    Well, think of this: XI (11) would be pronounced "Zee". :)
     
  21. slooksterPSV macrumors 68030

    slooksterPSV

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Location:
    Nowheresville
    #22
    Ok here're aare the problems with os naming:
    Windoze - used #'s in the start, people think #'s higher are better. now names - and the names they think ME ok XP is higher so its better
    ----------
    3.1 - better than 3.0, 2.0, 1.0
    95 - bigger #, better?
    98 - way better, 3x better
    2000 - wow 2000, new year!
    ME - Mine
    XP - Extensive use
    ----------
    Linux - too many names
    ---------
    Mandrake
    Red Hat
    SuSE X.X - bad #'s again
    Untubu
    Gentoo
    Genix - is that right?
    MiniLinux
    etc.
    ------------
    Apple Mac OS
    ------------
    OS 1 - 9.2.2 - naming conventions kinda confusing people have seen os 1-9 and not sure about X
    OS X - finally got a strong #
    what I want it to be called - Mac OS NG5150X - Next Gen 5150 new features since os 1 predecessor is X
    -------------

    Too many results in bad marketing
    Too many #'s to remember is bad
    Using letter's with #'s can get confusing, but sounds cooler, and better.
    Naming after animals - Purrrrrrrfect.
     
  22. RacerX macrumors 65832

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #23
    Actually... no they don't.

    Lets look at the NeXT/Apple OS versions from the first NeXT OS to the last version Apple released (OS version numbers in bold)...
    NeXTstep 0.8
    NeXTstep 1.0
    NeXTSTEP 2.0
    NeXTSTEP 2.1
    NEXTSTEP 3.0
    NEXTSTEP 3.1
    NEXTSTEP 3.2
    NEXTSTEP 3.3
    OPENSTEP 4.0
    OPENSTEP 4.1
    OPENSTEP 4.2
    Rhapsody Developer Release (Rhapsody 5.0)
    Rhapsody Developer Release 2 (Rhapsody 5.1)
    Rhapsody Premier (Rhapsody 5.2- never released to the public)
    Mac OS X Server 1.0 (Rhapsody 5.3)
    Mac OS X Server 1.0.1 (Rhapsody 5.4)
    Mac OS X Server 1.0.2 (Rhapsody 5.5)
    Mac OS X Server 1.2 (Rhapsody 5.6)
    Mac OS X Server 1.2 v.3 (Rhapsody 5.6 also)​
    And now lets look at the Darwin version numbers...
    Mac OS 10.0 (Mac OS X Developer Preview)
    Mac OS 10.0 (Mac OS X Developer Preview 2)
    Darwin 1.0 (Mac OS X Developer Preview 3)
    Darwin 1.1 (Mac OS X Developer Preview 4)
    Darwin 1.2.1 (Mac OS X Public Beta
    Darwin 1.3.1 (Mac OS X v. 10.0)
    Darwin 1.4.1 (Mac OS X v. 10.1)
    Darwin 5.1-5.5 (Mac OS X v. 10.1.1-10.1.5)
    Darwin 6.0-6.8 (Mac OS X v. 10.2.0-10.2.8)
    Darwin 7.0-7.5 (Mac OS X v. 10.3.0-10.3.9)*
    Darwin 8.0-8.1 (Mac OS X v. 10.4.0-10.4.1)​
    The version numbering in Darwin was changed at Mac OS X v10.1.1 to better match the build numbers of Mac OS X (Apple notified developers of the changes). They have absolutely nothing to do with any NeXT version numbers... at all.



    * for some reason 10.3.1 displays Darwin 7.0 when it should have been 7.1
     
  23. iMeowbot macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #24
    In point of fact the answer was right in front of you. Think hard, you've even shown what differences were actually marketing releases, and that the "first" version of Darwin was 5.0. Come on, you can figure it out!
     
  24. RacerX macrumors 65832

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #25
    First version of Darwin was 1.0. The earliest version I have is 1.0.2.

    The Darwin numbers have nothing (at all) to do with the NeXT OS version numbers.

    Besides, 5.0-5.6 were used by Rhapsody... and that numbering system was a direct continuation of the original NeXT numbering.

    :rolleyes:

    I don't know what you are reading, but your pretty far off base there.
     

Share This Page