Exactly.. People don't know how version numbers work.. That's why it's called OS X <name>, and marketed as such
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
Exactly.. People don't know how version numbers work.. That's why it's called OS X <name>, and marketed as such
Has apple ever officially said the 'x' in Mac OS X was a Roman numeral or just a name? I've always figured it as a name because even 10.0 cheetah was called Mac OS X 10. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X_10.0
If at least Aplle could get their 10.11 version working properly, that would be great.
This discussion of macOS vs MacOS vs OS X is interesting but relatively unimportant IMO.
If evidence of a future 'AppleOS' is found, its implications would be significant.
If evidence of a future 'AppleOS' is found, its implications would be significant.
It's not a decimal point so, no 11 doesn't come after 10.9. 10.10 comes after 10.9 followed by 10.11, 10.12, 10.13 (or perhaps at some point 11.0) and so on. Just remember that the dot is just a separator and not a decimal point and you'll get the idea. It's a pretty standard thing in software development.
ummm...folks..hate to break it to you but Apple changed the wording.
"
"
- To model customer use, we measure the power consumed by a product while it is running in a simulated scenario. Daily usage patterns are specific to each product and are a mixture of actual and modeled customer use data. Years of use, which are based on first owners, are assumed to be four years for OS X and tvOS devices and three years for iOS and watchOS devices. More information on our product energy use is provided in our Product Environmental Reports.
Strange no one in this thread has recognized that the "X" in OS X stands for Unix. Not "Ten." Ten was implied, but that's a minor issue (and understanding of that fact was a major insider's point of pride in Steve's new company)
Most Unix variants ever released have cleverly incorporated an "X" or more letters of the word "Unix" into their own name (Xenix, AIX, Linux, HP-UX, QNX, NeXT, the Posix specification, etc).
Steve used this "tradition" to name and differentiate his new OS from the (old) classic Mac operating system. The fact that the last version of the classic Mac OS, was version "nine," and that the "X" signifying Unix also meant "ten" was just a great play on words/numbers that delighted him no end.
The Unix heritage was (is) the major significance of the symbol. There NEVER was a plan to have an "OS 11, or XI" as long as the architecture was Unix-derived. "X" = Unix. Period. Very important marketing tool to him.
So the first version was OS X 10.0. This confused the uninformed who read it as, "Oh Es ten ten point oh," rather than its intended, "Mac Unix 10.0." The slight confusion was pleasing to the Apple insiders.
And version numbers (the part of the name after the "X") increment as needed: 10.1, 10.2 . . . 10.11 . . . 10.ad infinitum.
If Apple stops emphasizing the Unix roots of its OS, say by omitting an "X" from the name, this may indicate the development of a new or hybrid OS meant to transition to ARM systems for all products. Although iOS is, famously, OS X.
Most Unix variants ever released have cleverly incorporated an "X" or more letters of the word "Unix" into their own name (Xenix, AIX, Linux, HP-UX, QNX, NeXT, the Posix specification, etc).
Steve used this "tradition" to name and differentiate his new OS from the (old) classic Mac operating system. The fact that the last version of the classic Mac OS, was version "nine," and that the "X" signifying Unix also meant "ten" was just a great play on words/numbers that delighted him no end.
The Unix heritage was (is) the major significance of the symbol. There NEVER was a plan to have an "OS 11, or XI" as long as the architecture was Unix-derived. "X" = Unix. Period. Very important marketing tool to him.
So the first version was OS X 10.0. This confused the uninformed who read it as, "Oh Es ten ten point oh," rather than its intended, "Mac Unix 10.0." The slight confusion was pleasing to the Apple insiders.
And version numbers (the part of the name after the "X") increment as needed: 10.1, 10.2 . . . 10.11 . . . 10.ad infinitum.
If Apple stops emphasizing the Unix roots of its OS, say by omitting an "X" from the name, this may indicate the development of a new or hybrid OS meant to transition to ARM systems for all products. Although iOS is, famously, OS X.
Last edited:
I think it's just because OS X looks more stylish than OS 10 and this observation was especially true in 1998 - 2000. You have to remember Steve was all about design.
Huh, that's interesting; never knew that. Also interesting to see that Mac OS X 10.5 was the first BSD-based (Unix-like) OS to get UNIX 03 certification.
I could definitely see Apple going in the direction of having Mac OS X support ARM-based processors, given how much effort they put into tvOS/watchOS/iOS; in which case, it would make sense for them to drop the "X" Unix branding.
Though I would be interested in seeing if they maintain Mac OS X for Intel-based Macs, and macOS for ARM-based Macs. Doubt delivers will be thrilled having to support multiple Mac platforms.
Haha, touché.. You know what I mean
[doublepost=1460727179][/doublepost]
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.
I have been using OS X for 9 years now and I agree that Yosemite was the worst OS X. Tough El Capitan is better than Yosemite, it's still buggy and it still carries forward some of the bugs from Yosemite e.g. Finder, it has numerous bugs even now. What I really hate that despite reporting issues personally it has been more than one and half year and Apple doesn't fix them. I don't know what they are doing...If these bugs are not priorities than there are even more serious bugs that I haven't noticed myself. Or simply Craig Federighi and his team are bunch of incompetents. Before Apple would take time but will surely make the OS X bug free before releasing a new OS X. But now bugs aren't patched in the last OS X and a new OS X is released which also has bugs. I always upgraded at .0 releases before but now I wait until .3 comes out and I'm amazed to see that it has still so many bugs. It's really annoying...
It's always verbally referred to as "Oh Ess Ten" never as "Oh Ess Eks". See Steve Jobs introduce it:
You hope they keep it updated because you can't update it yourself. That's exactly my point. There wouldn't be anything wrong with the smaller form factor if they allowed for easy upgrades like their previous iterations of the Pro. It's a joke.
and iPadOS ?
[doublepost=1460740182][/doublepost]macOS is a better name anyway. Should've been changed when iOS was brought up.
I hated when people would say OS X instead of OS Ten
No.
What is in a name? Often more than thought. For one, rebranding OSX to OS something shifts the Mac line that much closer to iOS products—in perception, as well, likely, materially.
Indeed this has already occurred. And while admirable that the Apple ecosystem is cohesive, communicating with one another well (theoretically), remembered what each does best respectively and why there is still no one operating system shared by all. It could be argued that OSX has already suffered the intrusion of iOS features that do it and its users no favors. That Apple and its customers would benefit if the greater iOS family instead gained aspects of OSX, such as a decent file system.
Another would be choice. OSX remains by far the better operating system due its greater complexity and what might be done with it. This extends from difficult tasks which are accomplished more easily than with iOS, to no more than individual choice in how this is achieved.
In brief example Apple TV 4, and Apple somehow thinking all its customers would and should be pleased in its choice of a vivid white background for a device often used at night. Instead the simple individual choice of variety granted anyone using a Mac for a background.
Apple can still remain Apple, simple and intuitive, and yet allow individual choice instead of fiat by one designer. Rather it could easily excel at how well it implements individual choice and creativity. And for example of how to go about this look no further than its former OSX systems.
So the name? Perhaps named after some other cat. As OSX seems to have increasingly run off the rails ever since abandoning them.
What is in a name? Often more than thought. For one, rebranding OSX to OS something shifts the Mac line that much closer to iOS products—in perception, as well, likely, materially.
Indeed this has already occurred. And while admirable that the Apple ecosystem is cohesive, communicating with one another well (theoretically), remembered what each does best respectively and why there is still no one operating system shared by all. It could be argued that OSX has already suffered the intrusion of iOS features that do it and its users no favors. That Apple and its customers would benefit if the greater iOS family instead gained aspects of OSX, such as a decent file system.
Another would be choice. OSX remains by far the better operating system due its greater complexity and what might be done with it. This extends from difficult tasks which are accomplished more easily than with iOS, to no more than individual choice in how this is achieved.
In brief example Apple TV 4, and Apple somehow thinking all its customers would and should be pleased in its choice of a vivid white background for a device often used at night. Instead the simple individual choice of variety granted anyone using a Mac for a background.
Apple can still remain Apple, simple and intuitive, and yet allow individual choice instead of fiat by one designer. Rather it could easily excel at how well it implements individual choice and creativity. And for example of how to go about this look no further than its former OSX systems.
So the name? Perhaps named after some other cat. As OSX seems to have increasingly run off the rails ever since abandoning them.
That's the only reason I use it.I know - it irritates me so much when people say X as 'ecks'. Even on a podcast called the Cult Cast there's a guy on there that says it wrong and it drives me up the wall. Uuurgh!
I don't care how people say it, but saying it wrong on a podcast is pretty silly.I know - it irritates me so much when people say X as 'ecks'. Even on a podcast called the Cult Cast there's a guy on there that says it wrong and it drives me up the wall. Uuurgh!
"I guess that would explain why NeXT was such a runaway success."
Next the hardware company, no. That failure, probably as important in Jobs' maturation as his ouster at Apple.
But NextStep, the OS/UI business? Brilliant. Both prior to acquisition by Apple and since as OS X.
Next the hardware company, no. That failure, probably as important in Jobs' maturation as his ouster at Apple.
But NextStep, the OS/UI business? Brilliant. Both prior to acquisition by Apple and since as OS X.
Officially X stood for 10 even when Rhapsody (an OpenStep platform that wasn't an official Unix) was under development. It's nice that BSD was tied into it but there was more to it than that. BSD didn't even receive official UNIX certification until something like 2006-2007. It was in vogue to use the letter X in branding during the days of 'Generation X'.
Windows XP for example. It originally came from the Greek letters Kai and Ro and was used for a Windows 2000 beta build called Cairo. But when the final retail version of XP came out Microsoft resurrected the codename and said letters stood for 'Xperience'.
The tradition of continues to this day in companies and brands such as Space X. Entertainment loves the use of Latin numerals and expressions too. Deus Ex, Ex Machina, etc
Windows XP for example. It originally came from the Greek letters Kai and Ro and was used for a Windows 2000 beta build called Cairo. But when the final retail version of XP came out Microsoft resurrected the codename and said letters stood for 'Xperience'.
The tradition of continues to this day in companies and brands such as Space X. Entertainment loves the use of Latin numerals and expressions too. Deus Ex, Ex Machina, etc
Nothing I love more than a business model, where just about the time you get something working properly (it's a stretch, I know), you abandon it for a new buggy version, and encourage everybody to take an unjustified "leap of faith", and get on board.
It's "Brilliant" only in the sense that "Brilliant" is used in Monty Python Sketches.
BSD not receiving "official" Unix certification until 2006 had everything to do with politics, little to do with OS computer science. BSD officially WAS Unix as far as programmers and developers were concerned and official certification was an after the fact acknowledgement of the state of the industry over more than 10 years when the blessing finally occurred.
As far as the importance to Apple that OS X be recognized as Unix - that was paramount. The fact that "X" could mean both "Ten" and "Unix" was icing on the cake.
As far as the importance to Apple that OS X be recognized as Unix - that was paramount. The fact that "X" could mean both "Ten" and "Unix" was icing on the cake.
If S. Jobs was still at Apple someone would have lost their job over MacRumors pointing this out.