The Secret of Apple's OS X Version Numbering

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by Toe, Mar 30, 2004.

  1. Toe macrumors 65816

    Toe

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    #1
    This works on so many levels... just knock off the "10." from any OS X version number, and you have the real version.

    Rhapsody: Pre-alpha development release.
    Mac OS X Public Beta: An alpha with the wrong name.
    Mac OS X 10.0 -> Mac OS X 0: Version zero; the real public beta.
    Mac OS X 10.1 -> Mac OS X 1: The first genuinely working version, version 1.
    Mac OS X 10.2 -> Mac OS X 2: Version two; the first good one.
    Mac OS X 10.3 -> Mac OS X 3: Version three; getting mature now.

    Makes so much sense, doesn't it? It also explains why they charge a full $129 for a .1 increase in the version number... because it is really a full integer increase (which is obvious, given the hundreds of new features in each .1 increase).

    if they ever come up with Mac OS Eleven, it'll have to be a radical shift, like with a 3D-holo-interface, or where the whole User folder is stored on the net, or a fully tablet-based-OS, or perhaps direct brainwave input. Ya know... something new. :D
     
  2. jxyama macrumors 68040

    jxyama

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    #2
    hate to burst your bubble, but it is pretty much obvious by now that OS X's .1 update isn't like regular .1 updates...

    yes, they are "full" updates. ".1" being "minor" is just a (popular) convention, not a "law"...

    so think different. ;)
     
  3. Doraemon macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2001
    Location:
    Europe (EU)
  4. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #4
    I think he's confused since he left off...

    Mac OS X Version 1.0
    Mac OS X Version 1.1
    Mac OS X Version 1.2

    And the current version is

    Mac OS X Version 10.3

    If Version 10.0 was Mac OS X Version Zero, what does that make Version 1.0-1.2?

    I think he's still holding the answer secret to these first versions on OS X.

    Yes that's Rhapsody, but they were not just development releases -- they were "public" releases with the Server name and extensions applied. But they were still useable as a desktop OS.
     
  5. JamesDPS macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    Location:
    Irvine, CA
    #5
    Just thought I'd add for no reason to a thread that's going nowhere fast. Wasteland, anyone?
     
  6. Toe thread starter macrumors 65816

    Toe

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    #6
    They were still getting it down then... Those are just version 0.1, 0.1.1, and 0.1.2.


    The real secret is that OS X version 1.0 was actually a public beta. Sure, we all know that now, but it was a hundred dollar public beta....


    Though hardly the same species as Panther....
     
  7. Toe thread starter macrumors 65816

    Toe

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    #7
    Absolutely! But then again, most threads in most Mac discussion boards are as inane as this one.

    I mean really... how many threads are there about Jobs' use of a black turtleneck, to pick one at random....
     
  8. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #8
    I think you'll find it was much more than $100 -- I thought is was more like $499/$999 for the limited/unlimited versions.

    But it was also two years before version 10.0 came out.

    ---

    And congrats on revealing the OS X secret so many years after it was first released (April, 1999).
     
  9. JamesDPS macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    Location:
    Irvine, CA
    #9
    Heh -- are there many threads about Jobs' uniform? Sounds interesting... :D
     
  10. Toe thread starter macrumors 65816

    Toe

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    #10
    You're welcome. I know that most people have been waiting for my verdict for lo these many years.

    Soon I'll reveal the secret behind Apple's G-x processor numbering (hint: the PowerMac 6100 had a G1). Well, maybe after the G7 comes out... don't want to be over-hasty, ya know.
     
  11. wrldwzrd89 macrumors G5

    wrldwzrd89

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2003
    Location:
    Solon, OH
    #11
    I beat you to it; check this thread.
     
  12. Toe thread starter macrumors 65816

    Toe

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    #12
    OK, well... then I'll make a website that shows every current Mac model, the average time between model revisions, and the point where the current model fits in it's expected production cycle. And if I'm really clever, I'll also link to recent rumors about revisions to that model.

    I'll bet nobody ever came up with that before. So there!

    (oops)
     
  13. laserbeahm macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Location:
    Central Valley, CA
    #13
    I will agree that the difference between versions are usually pretty radical. Look at the difference between System 7 and OS 8. There have been a lot of huge changes even between the .x upgrades. On 10.0, you couldn't even share printers.
     
  14. Fender2112 macrumors 6502a

    Fender2112

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2002
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #14
    Huh ?

    I thought the OS X versions were Puma, Jaguar, Pather and soon to be Tiger. Now you're telling me they use a numbering system. That's absurd. It's not natual.
     
  15. wrldwzrd89 macrumors G5

    wrldwzrd89

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2003
    Location:
    Solon, OH
    #15
    Those are the codenames for the major versions of Mac OS X. Ever since Mac OS X was released, a numbering system was used for versioning. Apple just used the codenames internally until 10.2 "Jaguar" and continued the pattern with the release of 10.3 "Panther". In fact, most applications (and operating systems, which are merely "super-applications") use a numbering system for versions.
     
  16. MisterMe macrumors G4

    MisterMe

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    USA
    #16
    Some of us just don't have a sense of humor, do we?
     
  17. wrldwzrd89 macrumors G5

    wrldwzrd89

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2003
    Location:
    Solon, OH
    #17
    I didn't see the intended humor in Fender2112's post. Simple as that. <edit> But I do now!</edit>
     
  18. RacerX macrumors 65832

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #18
    As Mac OS X derives much of it's heritage from earlier NeXT releases, here is a list of the NeXT/Apple OS from version 0.8 to 5.6:

    • 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)
      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)

    After the release of Rhapsody 5.1 Apple started work on Mac OS X. The versions for Mac OS X are as follows:

    • Mac OS X Developer Preview
      Mac OS X Developer Preview 2
      Mac OS X Developer Preview 2.6 (aqua demo)
      Mac OS X Developer Preview 3
      Mac OS X Developer Preview 4
      Mac OS X Public Beta
      Mac OS X v. 10.0 (10.0.0-10.0.4)
      Mac OS X v. 10.1 (10.1.0-10.1.5)
      Mac OS X v. 10.2 (10.2.0-10.2.8)
      Mac OS X v. 10.3 (10.3.0-10.3.5)

    When Apple started Mac OS X they felt a need to relieve themselves of some undue licensing restrictions that has been following the NeXT/Apple OS from it's conception in the late 1980s. The new foundation was named Darwin. Here are the releases (that correspond to Mac OS X releases):

    • 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. 10.3.0-10.3.5)*

    I think that is a pretty complete listing to date. The Darwin list is the hardest to follow as Apple changed the version numbers with Mac OS X 10.1.1, and that the earliest developer previews displayed Mac OS 10.0 rather than Darwin.


    *for some reason 10.3.1 displays Darwin 7.0 when it should have been 7.1
     
  19. Fender2112 macrumors 6502a

    Fender2112

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2002
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #19
    Slow morning eh? ;) Then again, I did take the time to read it. :)

    Just think. If it took OS X this long to evolve, you can begin to understand why Microsoft is taking so long with Longhorn. Not that I have sympathy for MS. Just a thought. :)
     
  20. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #20
    Oh, and how many cat names have they got left to use?

    (Just thought I'd throw in more smoke along with the mirrors... funny thread this)
     
  21. Fender2112 macrumors 6502a

    Fender2112

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2002
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #21
    Home Assignment #2112

    Ok, just to add some spice to the thread. Your assignment is to create a list, simular to that of RacerX, which correlates the Mac OS versions againt Windows versions. Example: OS 7 = Windows 3.1.

    And do be creative. :D
     
  22. Fender2112 macrumors 6502a

    Fender2112

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2002
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #22
    There are least five which should take us to OS IX. Then we get use bears - Grizzly, Kodiac, Koala, Teddy. Or maybe snakes - Viper, Python, Cobra. Even fish - Guppy, Jelly, Clown, Dolphin.

    Someone please stop me aahhhhh .....
     
  23. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #23
    At least five?

    Lion -- obvious. And then?

    Oh wait, cougar...
     
  24. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #24
    Hasn't Microsoft been stuck on that fish name for years?
     
  25. Doraemon macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2001
    Location:
    Europe (EU)
    #25
    Actually,

    Kodiak was the codename of MacOS X Public Beta.

    http://www.apple-codenames.com/software/
     

Share This Page