The Next OS X will not be OS X.

[SolarShane]

It'll be OS 11. Why?

Apple has a formalised version number structure based around the NumVersion struct, which specifies a one- or two-digit major version, a one-digit minor version, a one-digit "bug" (i.e. revision) version, a stage indicator (drawn from the set development/prealpha, alpha, beta and final/release), and a one-byte (i.e. having values in the range 0–255) pre-release version, which is only used at stages prior to final. In writing these version numbers as strings, the convention is to omit any parts after the minor version whose value are zero (with "final" being considered the zero stage), thus writing 1.0.2 (rather than 1.0.2b12), 1.0.2 (rather than 1.0.2f0), and 1.1 (rather than 1.1.0f0).

Thus, meaning that Apple will most likely omit 10.10, as it ends in a zero, and because Apple has already released a 10.1 (remember 10.10 would be "10.1" according to Apple's naming convention) the next logical step is to move onto OS 11. I think that Mavericks was supposed to be OS 11, but because iOS 7 needed more attention, they decided to delay the redesign, but kept with the name change.

Don't tell me about how the logs say Apple is testing 10.10. Apple can easily fake version numbers to hide version they're actually testing. After all, Apple wouldn't want traffic tracking software to reveal OS 11 before it's reveal.

 

[mreg376]

It'll be OS 11. Why?



Thus, meaning that Apple will most likely omit 10.10, as it ends in a zero, and because Apple has already released a 10.1 (remember 10.10 would be "10.1" according to Apple's naming convention) the next logical step is to move onto OS 11. I think that Mavericks was supposed to be OS 11, but because iOS 7 needed more attention, they decided to delay the redesign, but kept with the name change.

Don't tell me about how the logs say Apple is testing 10.10. Apple can easily fake version numbers to hide version they're actually testing. After all, Apple wouldn't want traffic tracking software to reveal OS 11 before it's reveal.

Your "logic" is ridiculous. I doubt highly that Apple determines whether something is a major release/upgrade by a "naming convention" rather than features and capabilities.

 

[GGJstudios]

Your "logic" is ridiculous. I doubt highly that Apple determines whether something is a major release/upgrade by a "naming convention" rather than features and capabilities.

I completely agree. I've heard many arguments why people believe the next release will be 11.0 instead of 10.10, but this is, by far, the most ludicrous! OS X will be replaced by OS 11 only when there are significant changes that warrant such a change in name. Until then, it's quite possible to have 10.10, 10.11, 10.12, etc.

 

[maflynn]

OSX is the marketing name of their OS and they'll continue to use that and just use 10.10 for the versioning. There's really no reason to drop OS X and use OS XI or OS 11.

 

[Sky Blue]

(remember 10.10 would be "10.1" according to Apple's naming convention)

Nope.

 

[DeltaMac]

And, Apple has previously offered OS X versions ending in a zero: Example Mac OS X 10.4.10

Sky Blue, you type too fast for me

 

[ohbrilliance]

To the OP, I question the wisdom of wikipedia stating Apple only employs a 'a one-digit minor version'. Your quote also claims that Apple uses a single digit for bug releases. Tiger contradicted that with 10.4.10 and 10.4.11.

There's no logical reason or precedence for Apple *not* having a .10 as a minor version number.

And if there was, do you think Apple would honour developer-oriented numbering scheme over marketing? No chance. 10.10 or X.X are golden.

----------

Mavericks was supposed to be OS 11, but because iOS 7 needed more attention, they decided to delay the redesign, but kept with the name change.

Who knows when or why Apple will flip over to OS 11. Considering the vast changes of appearance since OS 10.0, and that all OS 10 versions have been built on the same base system, there's nothing to suggest that a bit of a redesign warrants an update to the major version number.

 

[richwoodrocket]

Ummm....
No one knows what the next os will be.

 

[Michael Goff]

It'll be OS 11. Why?



Thus, meaning that Apple will most likely omit 10.10, as it ends in a zero, and because Apple has already released a 10.1 (remember 10.10 would be "10.1" according to Apple's naming convention) the next logical step is to move onto OS 11. I think that Mavericks was supposed to be OS 11, but because iOS 7 needed more attention, they decided to delay the redesign, but kept with the name change.

Don't tell me about how the logs say Apple is testing 10.10. Apple can easily fake version numbers to hide version they're actually testing. After all, Apple wouldn't want traffic tracking software to reveal OS 11 before it's reveal.

Go watch the WWDC video where they announced Mavericks. They said the reason they moved to places in California was because they wanted "a name to use for OS ten for the next ten years". :|

 

[mojolicious]

Ummm....
No one knows what the next os will be.

I do.

It will be Mac OS X 10.10.

 

[MartinAppleGuy]

It'll be OS 11. Why?



Thus, meaning that Apple will most likely omit 10.10, as it ends in a zero, and because Apple has already released a 10.1 (remember 10.10 would be "10.1" according to Apple's naming convention) the next logical step is to move onto OS 11. I think that Mavericks was supposed to be OS 11, but because iOS 7 needed more attention, they decided to delay the redesign, but kept with the name change.

Don't tell me about how the logs say Apple is testing 10.10. Apple can easily fake version numbers to hide version they're actually testing. After all, Apple wouldn't want traffic tracking software to reveal OS 11 before it's reveal.

Using Wikipedia as a source. Nice :/

----------

Nope.

Hole in one my friend.

 

[richwoodrocket]

Go watch the WWDC video where they announced Mavericks. They said the reason they moved to places in California was because they wanted "a name to use for OS ten for the next ten years". :|

This post explains it. That disproved the ops statement. This is what I believe will happen too, because Craig said it himself.

----------

I do.



It will be Mac OS X 10.10.

Ok, the possibility of that is VERY high, but it's Apple. You never know what they might do. I agree with you though.

 

[Michael Goff]

This post explains it. That disproved the ops statement. This is what I believe will happen too, because Craig said it himself.

----------




Ok, the possibility of that is VERY high, but it's Apple. You never know what they might do. I agree with you though.

More likely is that eventually they'll just stop putting the number. It will just be "OS X" followed by a name.

 

[Osullivan1]

More likely is that eventually they'll just stop putting the number. It will just be "OS X" followed by a name.

Exactly. I've not seen them write 10.9 anywhere that was meant to be seen by consumers - other than the "About This Mac" section and the small print on Apple's website.

Plus, why would they start a brand new naming convention (after places in California) if they were about to start a new type of Mac OS?

 

[SolarShane]

Go watch the WWDC video where they announced Mavericks. They said the reason they moved to places in California was because they wanted "a name to use for OS ten for the next ten years". :|

Yep, because they really wanted to tell the world "Hey, we're making OS 11!"

 

[chown33]

Exactly. I've not seen them write 10.9 anywhere that was meant to be seen by consumers - other than the "About This Mac" section and the small print on Apple's website.

10.9.2 is also listed as the current version of OS X Mavericks on the Mac App Store. Specifically, it's listed as the "Version", and there's a "What's New in Version 10.9.2" blurb.

 

[MattInOz]

Yep, because they really wanted to tell the world "Hey, we're making OS 11!"

What makes you say that?

People who still need a Mac for productivity know that going from OS X to OS XI means some significant compatibility break. Some, even if minor, compatibility break means in simple terms some lost production. Big branding changes are there to sell the pain that goes with them.

Apple could afford to push big transition while there was good growth in the market now there isn't they need to push the idea that we've all done the hard yards and from now on computers will only make life easy not harder.

There is just no sales upside in a whole new Mac OS at this stage.

 

[Michael Goff]

Yep, because they really wanted to tell the world "Hey, we're making OS 11!"

Why would it matter? Unless you're saying that next year, when they "unveil 11", they're going to abandon everything up until then ... there's no reason for them to care about the number.

 

[GGJstudios]

Yep, because they really wanted to tell the world "Hey, we're making OS 11!"

The world already knows that Apple is constantly working to improve it's products. Of course they're working on making the OS that will follow OS X. Whether it will be called OS XI or OS 11 or something else is anyone's guess at this point. Until that is released, any updates to Mavericks will be named 10.9, 10.10, 10.11, etc.

 

[ScottishDuck]

Yep, because they really wanted to tell the world "Hey, we're making OS 11!"

OSX is more than a version. It's a brand. A very well known brand that they have had to work very hard on to be recognised.

 

[iMerik]

OSX is more than a version. It's a brand. A very well known brand that they have had to work very hard on to be recognised.

I hadn't really thought of it that way, but OSX really does feel like the Mac's iOS. There really is no need to stop calling it OS X either, as a name is just a name.

 

[Sound214]

#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_0 1000
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_1 1010
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_2 1020
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_3 1030
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_4 1040
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_5 1050
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_6 1060
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_7 1070
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_8 1080
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_9 1090
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_????? ????

I could really see them calling the next ten versions OS XI, since it's definitely going to differ pretty much.

 

[pdjudd]

I could really see them calling the next ten versions OS XI, since it's definitely going to differ pretty much.

Proof? We don’t know that - nothing had been revealed at all about the next version of OSX.

 

[Sound214]

Proof? We don’t know that - nothing had been revealed at all about the next version of OSX.

Well, of course we don't know. But there's certainly many things pointing to that fact. In the interview that Jason Snell did with Phil Schiller, Bud Tribble, and Craig Federighi, they said something very interesting:

http://www.macworld.com/article/2090829/apple-executives-on-the-mac-at-30-the-mac-keeps-going-forever.html

"[...] At the same time, you don’t want to feel like iOS was designed by [one] company and Mac was designed by [a different] company, and they’re different for reasons of lack of common vision. We have a common sense of aesthetics, a common set of principles that drive us, and we’re building the best products we can for their unique purposes. So you’ll see them be the same where that makes sense, and you’ll see them be different in those things that are critical to their essence."

I could be reading tea leaves, but I believe what they're really saying, is that iOS and OS X will and should look somewhat similar, but not to the extent that they should work the same way, like what Microsoft tries to do.

Also, of course, Mark Gurman at 9to5Mac does have some very interesting insights in the upcoming OS X. He was right about everything last year. He does, however, say that he believes it will indeed be called OS X 10.10, but I don't know. I guess we "know" more in a few days; Gurman wrote "We’ll have more on what to expect from OS X 10.10 soon, so stay tuned." in this article three weeks ago.

 

[Sky Blue]

But there's certainly many things pointing to that fact.

There's nothing pointing to that fact. There's many things pointing to the next version of OS X will be 10.10.