Apple Refers to OS X as 'MacOS' in Environmental Webpage Update

[MacHiavelli]

OS X for Intel-based Macs.

MacOS for ARM-based Macs.

Apple has spent a long time preparing for this move, what with stalling Intel-based updates to allow ARM to close the gap to Intel, and radical changes to iWork and iLife apps to make them compatible across devices.

MacOS won't run on Intel machines, it's for the next generation of ARM machines.

A long-term and carefully managed plan. The future is now growing large on the horizon.

 

[spiffers]

On a webpage that was updated this morning to share Apple's most recent environmental report, a Frequently Asked Questions section makes a mention of "MacOS." When discussing power consumption of products, MacOS is listed alongside tvOS, iOS, and watchOS.

Apple has changed it back to OS X now.

 

[dave_guitar_thompson]

If they're going to go with that naming scheme they might as well change iOS to phoneOS.



One of the most annoying quotes of all time. Nobody wanted the Mac Pro to be reinvented into an un-upgradeable trash can. They just wanted it to have the latest specs/features. His commentary on the justification for 16 GB phones is also annoying.

Very true on the Mac Pro front. I personally, wanted pcie slots. I also wanted multiple hard drives so there could be not just a pcie flash ssd, but also maybe a raid hard drive or a spin up drive for storage. The system they made depends on the proliferation of thunderbolt peripherals, which just hasn't happened on a big enough scale since this release.

 

[Tech198]

I'd like a change to Mac OS X ....... If u leave the naming scheme up to the community on Apple forums, u're never gonna get an answer.

Its the only odd one name out now...

 

[lowendlinux]

magical macOS

 

[Padaung]

For us end users, does it really matter what it is called? I would imagine Apple will be going away from a big release of Mac OS X once a year at some point. It seems unnecessary now. Just send me a change when it is ready and add it to my OS, similar to how Adobe makes changes to CC applications. I'd rather small changes on a drip feed basis and for them to be bug free rather than a big change which may have issues. Also, as Adobe showed with the recent change to the Lightroom import module, a 'drip feed' change can still raise issues with users. Constant updates allows for a fix to be made more quickly and easily.

With Mac OS X constantly shifting the version number only becomes relevant for internal (e.g. developers and support) reference purposes, to the customer they become pointless. In this respect, dropping the 'X' makes sense.

 

[Mums]

If they're going to go with that naming scheme they might as well change iOS to phoneOS.



One of the most annoying quotes of all time. Nobody wanted the Mac Pro to be reinvented into an un-upgradeable trash can. They just wanted it to have the latest specs/features. His commentary on the justification for 16 GB phones is also annoying.

I appreciate the much smaller form factor of the 2013 Mac Pro. I've been able to easily take it with me to US, UK, Spain. Also, regardless of any similarity it might have in appearance to a trash can, it is beautiful. It is also a powerhouse which is more than enough for my video-editing and intense overall usage.

I just hope they keep it updated. And I've been very disappointed they never came up with a 4K monitor for the 2013 Mac Pro, as it would be a no-brainer to do so, and I can't see why they haven't, aside from pure negligence.

 

[ISanych]

Well, it's for iDevices, so iOS fits iPad, iPod, iPhone.

So I should be able to install iOS on iMac then

 

[Sirious]

They've changed the name back to OS X on that web page!

 

[Phoenixx]

For us end users, does it really matter what it is called? I would imagine Apple will be going away from a big release of Mac OS X once a year at some point. It seems unnecessary now. Just send me a change when it is ready and add it to my OS, similar to how Adobe makes changes to CC applications. I'd rather small changes on a drip feed basis and for them to be bug free rather than a big change which may have issues. ...... Constant updates allows for a fix to be made more quickly and easily.

With Mac OS X constantly shifting the version number only becomes relevant for internal (e.g. developers and support) reference purposes, to the customer they become pointless. In this respect, dropping the 'X' makes sense.

I kind of disagree that the "X" is no longer necessary, and would argue the exact opposite. In the past, when Apple products where a lot more reliable, you pretty well knew what you were getting when an OS upgrade came around, but these days, you often don't. With all the bugs and glitches, you simply can't trust Apple to produce something that "Just Works" anymore, and have to wait to see how well the latest OS will work. This is where the "X" is so appropriate: "X" is the mathematical representation of an unknown quantity, which is exactly what the Mac OS has become.

Mac OS Unknown Quantity.11.4 doesn't quite have the same ring to it though does it.

 

[ISanych]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but after 10.9, should come 11?

Why? It could be 10.10, it could be 2016.1, it could be OS Zen Edition - it is up to apple.

 

[bananas]

In my wildest dreams Apple renames the operating system as macOS 11 and switches from BSD to a Linux kernel, ditches the HFS+ for something more modern (whatever that should be; BtrFS, ZFS, ext4..).

 

[bruinsrme]

Reading through some of these posts it reminds me whe Apple changed the iTunes icon.
Yet we and Apple made it through the change.

 

[haravikk]

This isn't really a problem for me, as I never really stopped calling it Mac OS in the first place…

 

[Benjamin Frost]

Software version numbers don't follow decimal math. Didn't we already have this discussion when Yosemite came out?

Perhaps, but it's terribly confusing.

Logically, 11 comes after 10.9. We had 10,7, 10.8, 10.9; then comes 11. 10.10 is the same as 10.1, which we had years ago.

Plea for sanity.

 

[Steve121178]

Logically, 11 comes after 10.9

Mathematically yes. But software development is very different and totally up to the vendor. Mozilla, Google, Microsoft, Apple & Adobe all do it 'their' way.

There is no right or wrong way at the end of the day.

 

[TheTissot11]

This would be the biggest change on the OS X and it will still be buggy! This is the OS X under Federighi.

 

[Benjamin Frost]

Mathematically yes. But software development is very different and totally up to the vendor. Mozilla, Google, Microsoft, Apple & Adobe all do it 'their' way.

There is no right or wrong way at the end of the day.

I understand that.

But most people aren't software developers, and expect 11 to follow 10.9. It's a matter of being user-friendly, something that Steve Jobs grasped well.

 

[Steve121178]

I understand that.

But most people aren't software developers, and expect 11 to follow 10.9. It's a matter of being user-friendly, something that Steve Jobs grasped well.

It's just a version number and doesn't matter. The branding is still "OS X" and they still dumb it down and give it a stupid 'friendly name' so the simpletons get it (El Cap, Mavericks etc).

 

[Benjamin Frost]

It's just a version number and doesn't matter. The branding is still "OS X" and they still dumb it down and give it a stupid 'friendly name' so the simpletons get it (El Cap, Mavericks etc).

Patronising much?

 

[theMightyMacBoy]

macOS for Macs
watchOS for watches
tvOS for tv settop boxes
iOS for ... eyes?

Yes, I know its for "iDevices", but that is still quite unclear. iOS isn't for iMacs, for example. It's also not for iPod Nanos/Shuffles.

iOS is for their upcoming "Google Glass Killer" -- iGlass.

 

[Erasmus]

I understand that.

But most people aren't software developers, and expect 11 to follow 10.9. It's a matter of being user-friendly, something that Steve Jobs grasped well.

Perhaps after 10.9 should come 10.A, then 10.B, 10.C, etc?

Software is binary anyway, so if you squint one eye, stand one one leg and spin around really fast, it starts to maybe make sense to use base 16.

Then again, as 10=A, the next version of OSX should technically be Mac OS A.C, which makes perfect sense, because Macs run on AC mains power.

Then next year, we get MOS A.D, when the conservatives win, and all our personal data gets streamed to a database in Israel.

 

[Rampageofunicorns]

They have updated it it no longer says macOS it says OS X

 

[plexdk]

So I should be able to install iOS on iMac then

Haha, touché.. You know what I mean
[doublepost=1460727179][/doublepost]

This would be the biggest change on the OS X and it will still be buggy! This is the OS X under Federighi.

Try working with Windows pc's


Jokes aside... Yosemite was the worst OS X, (even though it has stabilized now).. I think el cap is working buttery smooth, and didn't experience too many problems with its .0 release.

 

[beaker7]

A phone company makes computers? ha!