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.
First OS X 10.10 Banner Goes Up at Moscone Featuring Yosemite
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
i dont even know how to pronounce that(Yosemite) like jose in jose...ph? and mite as in dyna...mite?
Yeah, its not pronounced how it looks. English is fun that way.
Yeah, we wont see 11 until theyre ready to rewrite the entire thing completely. Itd be like the move from OS 9 to OS X. And considering that OS 9 and even OS 8.6 were basically placeholders while they created OS X That takes a while to do.
Well, if the continue to draw on the Bay Area and NorCal speaking Spanish and some local Native American dialects will be helpful.
On the bright side, the rest of the world gets a California geography lesson
http://www.forvo.com/word/yosemite/i dont even know how to pronounce that
As are nineteenth century English-speakers' attempts at Native American names.
maybe because of your sign..maybe you have water sign
im bull so im earth sign so i like it
I actually was thinking about it, and I figured having 2 words as a name would actually be a bit better. Here's why:
10.5 - Leopard
10.6 - Snow Leopard
10.7 - Lion
10.8 - Mountain Lion
10.9 - Mavericks
10.10 - El Cap / Half Dome
See the pattern here? This, of course, is personal opinion, but every other release of OS X has been a bit better than the preceding version. For example, 10.8 was better than 10.7. It seems that the odd-numbered releases are a bit rougher around the edges, a bit more buggier, while the even releases are typically more stable, more smooth, more refined, IME. So, having 2 words would follow that pattern, and theoretically, 10.10 (let's say, El Cap) would be to 10.9 (Mavericks) as 10.8 (Mountain Lion) was to 10.7 (Lion).
Not only that, but 10.10 is ALREADY coming across as following Mountain Lion a bit in the very terms of the theme being a mountain! (Yosemite, Half Dome, El Cap, whatever) - think about it. Snow leopards and mountain lions/cougars are usually found in mountainous environments, while leopards and lions are commonly found in flat environments. The environments surrounding the ocean, as well as the Mavericks spot in CA, is flat (sand/beaches) often.
Yeah, one could argue I'm overthinking this. But I hope my predication comes true, because 10.9 (for me) was buggy, glitchy, and rough around the edges. Just as Lion was, and to a lesser extent, Leopard. Conversely, SL and ML both were near flawless.
I noticed this pattern a while ago. You could say Tiger (which, again, personal opinion, was very stable) kind of broke the naming pattern, but Tiger was released in 2005, and was based on a 2-year release timeline, unlike newer versions of Mac OS X. Times were also different back then, as Tiger still had Classic (OS 9) support included.
Wanted to share my opinion in this thread, as it's relevant to 10.10.
10.5 - Leopard
10.6 - Snow Leopard
10.7 - Lion
10.8 - Mountain Lion
10.9 - Mavericks
10.10 - El Cap / Half Dome
See the pattern here? This, of course, is personal opinion, but every other release of OS X has been a bit better than the preceding version. For example, 10.8 was better than 10.7. It seems that the odd-numbered releases are a bit rougher around the edges, a bit more buggier, while the even releases are typically more stable, more smooth, more refined, IME. So, having 2 words would follow that pattern, and theoretically, 10.10 (let's say, El Cap) would be to 10.9 (Mavericks) as 10.8 (Mountain Lion) was to 10.7 (Lion).
Not only that, but 10.10 is ALREADY coming across as following Mountain Lion a bit in the very terms of the theme being a mountain! (Yosemite, Half Dome, El Cap, whatever) - think about it. Snow leopards and mountain lions/cougars are usually found in mountainous environments, while leopards and lions are commonly found in flat environments. The environments surrounding the ocean, as well as the Mavericks spot in CA, is flat (sand/beaches) often.
Yeah, one could argue I'm overthinking this. But I hope my predication comes true, because 10.9 (for me) was buggy, glitchy, and rough around the edges. Just as Lion was, and to a lesser extent, Leopard. Conversely, SL and ML both were near flawless.
I noticed this pattern a while ago. You could say Tiger (which, again, personal opinion, was very stable) kind of broke the naming pattern, but Tiger was released in 2005, and was based on a 2-year release timeline, unlike newer versions of Mac OS X. Times were also different back then, as Tiger still had Classic (OS 9) support included.
Wanted to share my opinion in this thread, as it's relevant to 10.10.
All the talk of OS XI confuses me.
I don't think there ever will be an OS XI. Wasn't OS X named so that it could be read as Ten, but also represent the X in Unix?
Before OS X was OS 9, so why did they suddenly change to X apart from the Unix connection?
I don't think there ever will be an OS XI. Wasn't OS X named so that it could be read as Ten, but also represent the X in Unix?
Before OS X was OS 9, so why did they suddenly change to X apart from the Unix connection?
