Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

How will Apple name the last 3 versions of OS X?

motulist said:
There are zillions more cat names left. And I doubt Apple would care if two different cat names were synonyms for the same species. And even if Apple did run out of actual cat species names, there are plenty of non-joke cat names they could use, such as griffin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feline

Wildcat
Ocelot
Lynx
Bobcat

And given that Apple did Leopard and then Snow Leopard it means that they can also do Bengal Tiger, White Tiger, Siberian Tiger, etc.

In other words, there's no shortage of big cat names left. And Apple is gonna do way more than another 3 versions of OS X anyway, I don't know where you got that number from. After OS 10.9 comes OS 10.10, the numbers don't stop at a single place.
Click to expand...

Yeah but Bengal/Siberian should have been updates to 10.4 then…calling 10.7 (or whatever) "Siberian Tiger" would confuse the hell out of people.
 
Tallest Skil said:
That was 10.0.

Cheetah, Puma, Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard, Snow Leopard, Lynx, Lion, Snow Lion.

Then OS XI... with FISH.
Click to expand...

Lynx sounds too much like "Linux" though…

And "Clouded Leopard" sounds like an unclear version of (Snow) Leopard to me…

Cougar is kind of Puma no?

So the only real big/desirable one left is Lion—but do they have a trademark on that?

I think it will be interesting to see what they come up with—maybe they'll have to hurry up with OS "Eleven". :)

"Ocelot" and "Bobcat" are also unlikely, IMO, but who knows, they're probably going to have to come up with *something*.
 
The initial launch of OS X did not use the cat codename for marketing purposes. Nor did 10.1. (Although, I believe they were Puma and Cougar, respectively.)

The reason for continuing with the cat names for marketing purposes is that upgading from "Tiger" to "Leopard" sounds a lot more legitimate than upgrading from 10.4 to 10.5.

Chances are, Apple will stick with OS X as a brand name, and eventually come oyut with a new way to market it. There is absolutely no reason why we couldn't have OS X 10.10. But we are running out of kittys.
 
mkrishnan said:
Because the world is coming to an end, my friend. :D

As the Arctic ice caps melt and more and more cars emit more and more pollution, Snow Leopard will give way to Dirty Snow Leopard and then Melting Leopard, Rising Oceans. Finally, in 2014, Tsunami Leopard, Crashing Wave will descend on the coastal seaboards, wiping out most of the world's major port cities and killing billions of people, plunging humanity into a long and dark age of peril.
Click to expand...

Uh.. I don't think I will download that update :D
 
Ok, my predictions…

(in order of likelihood):

Lion (if they can use it)
Cougar (even though it's a kind of puma)
Sabertooth (even though it sounds like Bluetooth)
 
akonradi said:
How ironic. Cheetah was the slowest, clunkiest version of Mac OS to date.
Click to expand...

Yes but they wanted to show that back then it was the best!How do you compare the past with the future??:confused:

It's like you're telling me ok,Graham Bell's phone sucked compared to iphone!Yes that's true but you don't make comparisons like this!!:)
 
typer16452 said:
Yeah but Bengal/Siberian should have been updates to 10.4 then…calling 10.7 (or whatever) "Siberian Tiger" would confuse the hell out of people.
Click to expand...

It is the same thing with Leopard and Snow Leopard, but these two are even closer together, and yet, I don't think too many people will be confused...well, maybe some, but not many.
 
frockaholic said:
It is the same thing with Leopard and Snow Leopard, but these two are even closer together, and yet, I don't think too many people will be confused...well, maybe some, but not many.
Click to expand...

It's not the same thing. Snow Leopard will be a version of Leopard and will continue to look and act like Leopard (most improvements are "under the hood"). Siberian Tiger would not be a version of Tiger.
 
I think you missed it......

Digital Skunk said:
Amen, since the main reason I go for Apple is the software. Could you imagine a world where the perfection of good PC hardware meets the perfection of Apple software?

I am sweating just thinking about it. :D
Click to expand...

In case you missed it Macs are PC hardware now. Just not crappy PC hardware that Dell and HP use. Start running OSX on random hardware and it will be just as unstable as Winblows.
 
Cheetah, Puma, Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard, Snow Leopard

then:

year- version- mac os x name

2011- 10.7.0 "Mac OS X Lion"

2013- 10.8.0 "Mac OS X Lynx"

2015- 10.9.0 "Mac OS X Felis"

2017- 10.X "Mac OS X" just 10!

2019- 10.11 "Mac OS 11" just like windows 7, (random number windows put!, why couldn't it be windows 8 or 9 or 45!?
:D:D:D:D:D:D
 
Tallest Skil said:
Because it's the next number in their build sequence... :confused: Windows 3, Windows 95 (4), Windows 98 (5), XP/Vista (6), Seven (7).
Click to expand...

Actually Windows 95/98/ME are all version 4.x.x and Windows XP is 5.x.x (5.1.2600 on my old PC notebook). It's based on the kernel versions, not the version of Windows itself. XP started using the NT kernel so that's why they bumbed up to 5.x.x. Windows 7 doesn't necessarily have to be version 7.x.x if they follow the same version scheme as in the past. And apparently Windows 7 is actually version 6.x.x. Just throwing all this out there to confuse everyone more. :p
 
Tallest Skil said:
Because it's the next number in their build sequence... :confused: Windows 3, Windows 95 (4), Windows 98 (5), XP/Vista (6), Seven (7).
Click to expand...

Yeah, thats not right at all. If that were the case, what about ME (Major Errors) and Win 2000 (XP without all the glam)

MacManiac76 said:
Actually Windows 95/98/ME are all version 4.x.x and Windows XP is 5.x.x (5.1.2600 on my old PC notebook). It's based on the kernel versions, not the version of Windows itself. XP started using the NT kernel so that's why they bumbed up to 5.x.x. Windows 7 doesn't necessarily have to be version 7.x.x if they follow the same version scheme as in the past. And apparently Windows 7 is actually version 6.x.x. Just throwing all this out there to confuse everyone more. :p
Click to expand...

Yes, the 16/32 bit kernel hybrids 95/98/ME were all 4.X.X but 5.0 started with Windows 2000. XP was 5.1 and Vista was version 6.0 (thus all of the hardware incompatibilities, going from XP to Vista, but why it's easy to install new "designed for XP" devices on 2000)

Windows 7 will have a kernel version of 7. If they didn't want to confuse people, they should have named it Windows 11 Although these OSes were not linear, you could count them:

1.0>2.0>3.0>95>NT>98>2000>ME>XP>Vista
.1.....2.....3.....4....5....6......7......8....9.....10


Just my opinion. The layman doesn't count kernel revisions, he counts product releases
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back