I like it. Make total sense.
Anyways OS X was Mac OS X before, so it's not a big change.
Anyways OS X was Mac OS X before, so it's not a big change.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Refers to OS X as 'MacOS' in Environmental Webpage Update
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
MacOS is a good name as it clearly explains what it is, an operating system for MAC. This emphasises the Mac platform and, I think, gives a commitment from Apple to Mac computers.
The thing that possibly excites me about this... why did they wait so long to change the name? Hopefully because they've got some big upgrades in store to capitalize on the name change. Theres' been a lot of talk of bringing Siri to the mac, which I assume would mean Siri is getting some upgrades. OS X also doesn't use UIKit for development, which is a pain for developers, but also might be the dependency holding back a major iTunes redesign or refactoring into separate apps. So we could see some big updates to standard Mac apps.
Seems like there will be some serious updates. I can't imagine they'd just say "oh yeah, BTW we're calling it MacOS now. Nothing is new, jusXt calling it something different. Ok bye."
Seems like there will be some serious updates. I can't imagine they'd just say "oh yeah, BTW we're calling it MacOS now. Nothing is new, jusXt calling it something different. Ok bye."
If they change the name I hope there's something amazing coming to the OS...and I don't mean Siri.
I don't care, as long as it doesn't continue as 10.11, 10.12, 10.13. They don't make sense decimal places, or as version naming. I see people typing 10.11 as 10.1 because they don't know the difference. Whichever one Apple Wants:
- macOS 11
- Macintosh OS 11
- Mac OS 11
Apple has changed operating system names more than once.
System Software --> System --> Mac OS --> OS X --> MacOS?
With iOS powering both watchOS and tvOS, I would frankly prefer:
- phoneOS
- padOS
- tvOS
- watchOS
Makes sense, I thought we had until WWDC before they started throwing that MacOS term around though.
[doublepost=1460674320][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1460674320][/doublepost]
I'd be down to have a phoneOS bowl of cereal.
Apple isn't one for sentiment but I'd hate to see OS X go as a name.
It's common in software.. The dot is a separator
Yeah for the love of me! (Pete)
Seriously though, if OS X is 'replaced' with macOS won't that cause a problem in 2017 with macOS 2.0? (As there as already been Mac OS 2).
While we're at it, why does watchOS get a proper version number (1.0 on release, then 2.0 at WWDC) but the first version of tvOS seem to have been 9.0?
Maybe they are working on Mac OS XI, with a brand new Darwin that move the kernel to multiple core, and a better memory model on UI.
Seriously, if you have notice, sometimes your mach_kernel would go to 100% for a while if you open or quit an app, and under large amount of Safari tabs the kernel goes to 2-3x of its actual memory usage (easy way to prove: relaunching the safari release some "real memory"), you know they should work more on the Darwin side. (The first thing they should fix is the Darwin Source. I haven't seen a working public one since 10.5, and I'm not the only one who is interest in building stuff on Darwin instead of Linux)
If Apple wants to go back to "years of advance" on their competitors, nothing would make more sense that renew the old things that under the hood, and start from the desktop. (Linux won't be help to Google. They won't like Google ordering them to add feature. And Microsoft can't justify the cost of a new kernel when they just release one for Windows 10)
As long as they don't fix the Safari refresh bug (yes. Your Safari on iOS refresh not because it has no memory. They are suppose to save the page in storage and restore it on launch, as any iOS developer. It has even been identified and fixed by Apple at one point. ), you will still buy new devices for the new hardware. But making a new kernel will improve their flexibility on future products (how about a MacBook play 4K video with A9X, and play games and do Final Cut Pro with Intel, with a 36 hours light use battery life? Theoretically, all they need is a new subsystem, a distributed one, like their old XGrid)
Seriously, if you have notice, sometimes your mach_kernel would go to 100% for a while if you open or quit an app, and under large amount of Safari tabs the kernel goes to 2-3x of its actual memory usage (easy way to prove: relaunching the safari release some "real memory"), you know they should work more on the Darwin side. (The first thing they should fix is the Darwin Source. I haven't seen a working public one since 10.5, and I'm not the only one who is interest in building stuff on Darwin instead of Linux)
If Apple wants to go back to "years of advance" on their competitors, nothing would make more sense that renew the old things that under the hood, and start from the desktop. (Linux won't be help to Google. They won't like Google ordering them to add feature. And Microsoft can't justify the cost of a new kernel when they just release one for Windows 10)
As long as they don't fix the Safari refresh bug (yes. Your Safari on iOS refresh not because it has no memory. They are suppose to save the page in storage and restore it on launch, as any iOS developer. It has even been identified and fixed by Apple at one point. ), you will still buy new devices for the new hardware. But making a new kernel will improve their flexibility on future products (how about a MacBook play 4K video with A9X, and play games and do Final Cut Pro with Intel, with a 36 hours light use battery life? Theoretically, all they need is a new subsystem, a distributed one, like their old XGrid)
I'd very much welcome this change as it not only I feel streamlines their OS naming conventions but also sounds simpler and perhaps less intimidating for people that are new to the Mac product line.
And for everyone saying who even cares about this, I care about consistency in my Apple products
And for everyone saying who even cares about this, I care about consistency in my Apple products
It already sounds ridiculous.. Mac OS TEN version TEN DOT ELEVEN DOT FOUR. I can't see MacOS ELEVEN DOT FOUR being any worse.
Yeah, it's been a hit with the Romans, and a huge help differentiating between all the people still using earlier systems.
I've called it "MacOS (Insert pretty picture here)" for a long time.
I think it's because tvOS is a branch of iOS, and will probably still continue to get iOS code merged into it.. WatchOS is probably a bit more it's own optimized OS, because of its tiny hardware resources
You're right it makes no sense. The 'X' in the name refers to the '10'. There was never Mac OS X 9.0 so it would seem odd if there was ever OS X 11.
More like OS 9 > OS 10.0, OS 10.1 ... OS 10.11 > OS 11.
Classic systems were styled Mac OS 9, version 10 was Mac OS X so if version 11 was styled macOS 11 that would make more sense.
When did it stop being called MacOS?
I'm pretty sure my first iMac shipped with Mac OS 8
Is the rebranding just taking out the space?
I'm pretty sure my first iMac shipped with Mac OS 8
Is the rebranding just taking out the space?
They were meant to, based on what? What about El Capitan was so major it deserved a version change the same as OS 9 > OS X.