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

Is Big Sur worthy of being 11.0?

the8thark

the8thark

macrumors 601
Original poster
Apr 18, 2011
4,628
1,735
I watched quite a few videos from WWDC on Big Sur and quite a few commentary videos also. All of them led me to believe Big Sur is more of a 10.16 and less of a 11.0.

So can someone here share why Apple is calling this 11.0. Is Apple really calling these features worthy of a whole new version number? Or is this just a new number for the new AS Macs?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: George Dawes
I would say that going by previous numbering systems, they should be well past 10 by now, but they just decided to stick to 10 for the cute X for ages.
 
  • Like
Reactions: simonmet
no one can tell you what apple is thinking, but it's not unreasonable to assume that they're doing what they choose to do... so, big sur=mac os 11. but if you want a thread of guesses, opinions, assumptions and rants... this is a good place for that. 😆
 
  • Like
Reactions: Martyimac and Peadogie
In the first beta, macOS Big Sur declared itself to be macOS 10.16. But iOS' major release number is the first number in its name. iPadOS is the same, tvOS, watchOS; Just like when OS X became macOS - The Mac was an outlier. This is just bringing it into the same naming methodology as the rest. And macOS Big Sur is ushering in a new era. While it's not the OS that's responsible for it, we're changing architecture, which last time also warranted a name change, from PowerMac to Mac Pro, PowerBook to MacBook Pro, iBook to MacBook. Big Sur is the first Mac OS that runs on Apple Silicon, it's a new design language, though it does still heavily respect the history of macOS design. Big Sur is just evolving on things; It's not replacing the kernel or anything like when we went from OS 9 to NeXTSTEP; AKA OS X. But it also shouldn't. The Unix foundations of macOS show no sign of ageing, and on the contrary is a solid, composable architecture that can keep up with changing computer landscapes. While it fundamentally hasn't been replaced outright like when we went from 9 to X, the macOS today is not the Mac OS of early OS X. We have a new file system, a vastly different threading model, a completely new model for kernel extension-like behaviour that can run in user land through flexible kernel hooks, sandboxing and process isolation - And going up from the super low level, we have a new default shell, a new graphics API with Metal, a new language directly supported by the SDK in the form of Swift, UIKit on macOS, nearing a first-class framework, along with the declarative SwiftUI.

It's not an overnight overhaul, and it's a change here and there for a long time. macOS did not suddenly go from 10 to 11 like it did from 9 to 10. It slowly, birthday after birthday, became a version number older. I gave my Mac a little hat and a cake to celebrate. She didn't eat the cake so I ate it for her. But I think she's had a happy version number birthday anyway
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: Paul Cordingley, chabig, MandiMac and 2 others
It is definitely a 10.16. The decision to call it 11 is purely based on marketing. The underlying system is still OS X. I suppose that this streamlined their naming scheme, not to mention that this is the first release that kind of unified the visual language across the Apple ecosystem. One thing though: Big Sur does open up possibilities for more dramatic under the hood changes because kernel extensions are now deprecated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KALLT
In terms of functions (I mean, the really useful function that a normal user can feel it), no.

In terms of "lock down", yes. It's almost at the level of iOS now. Nowhere near the "traditional" macOS / OSX.
 
leman said:
It is definitely a 10.16. The decision to call it 11 is purely based on marketing.
Click to expand...

and you know this because... an apple exec told you? you were in on the memo? or you read it on a web forum?

apple doesn't tell us much (if anything). yet ppl seem to think they know what apple is thinking. amusing, anyway...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Martyimac
fisherking said:
and you know this because... an apple exec told you? you were in on the memo? or you read it on a web forum?
Click to expand...

I "know" it by exclusion. Big Sur does not contain any significant changes in it's technical base. It is just an additional iteration of the former OS X, using the same kernel, same core software packages, same everything: it just changes some things, adds some more things and removes some things. In this way, Big Sur is not different from any other macOS update. I't as much (or even less ) of a change compared to Catalina as Yosemite was to Mavericks or Leopard to Tiger. Since there is no technical reason to call it "11", the reason must be marketing.

In a way, it's similar to the OS X to macOS change — this change was not because the OS itself has changed significantly, it was to streamline the names of the platforms.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: MJWMac1988 and apple_iBoy
h9826790 said:
In terms of "lock down", yes. It's almost at the level of iOS now. Nowhere near the "traditional" macOS / OSX.
Click to expand...

Complete nonsense. It is not locked down in any form or fashion. You still can install or run any software you want on it. The only major change is that the core system is now properly isolated. It is a good thing. The only users with whom it interferes is the OS modders, but I don't see why the interest of the minuscule minority should override safety and experience for everyone else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jason2000 and chabig
leman said:
I have honestly no idea what this is supposed to mean 😂
Click to expand...
Let‘s rephrase: You just told us just because things are changing, the macOS number should not. Additionally, what would be a great time to go from X to 11 in your opinion?
 
leman said:
Complete nonsense. It is not locked down in any form or fashion. You still can install or run any software you want on it. The only major change is that the core system is now properly isolated. It is a good thing. The only users with whom it interferes is the OS modders, but I don't see why the interest of the minuscule minority should override safety and experience for everyone else.
Click to expand...

I also don’t really see Big Sur as any more locked down than Catalina. And even the system isolation you mention, Apple is keeping around kext support for kexts that cannot yet be replaced by Driver Kit. However, h9826970 is a smart person, so I’m sure there’s some argument and I’m looking forward to hearing it :)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: TiggrToo
MandiMac said:
Let‘s rephrase: You just told us just because things are changing, the macOS number should not. Additionally, what would be a great time to go from X to 11 in your opinion?
Click to expand...

No, what I am saying is that was has changed is first and foremost how Apple names things, not what the things are. I am certainly not talking about how things "should be", neither do I have a strong opinion on it. I think that current Apple naming scheme makes a lot fo sense.

When it was introduced, OS X was a radical departure from the classical Mac OS — it was a completely different operating system on it's core, built using completely different set of technologies. To emphasize the flexibility and power of this new OS architecture, Apple kept the name OS X and just bumped the minor version each time a major overhaul was published. When the first iPhone was release, Steve Jobs has even announced that it was running OS X. Afterwards the OS X was forked into multiple specialized operating systems, sharing the same core, but targeting different devices groups, and few years ago, Apple has renamed Mac OS X to macOS, in order to have consistent naming. So right now we have macOS, iOS, tvOS, iPadOS and watchOS — all of which are based on OS X set of technologies. Essentially, all these systems are forks (versions) of OS X. Apple changing their naming scheme does not reflect any deep architectural changes. Big Sur (macOS 11) is still "OS X" (speaking of core technology) — just like any other Apple OS. In the "old " Apple marketing scheme, it would have been Mac OS X 10.16.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with "macOS 11". In fact, since they dropped the "OS X" naming a while ago, the old naming scheme stopped making much sense. I expect them to continue using an incremental naming scheme, just like with the other products, so we will get macOS 12, macOS 13 etc. in the following years. And maybe one of these system's one day will drop the OS X heritage, who knows.
 
fisherking said:
and you know this because... an apple exec told you? you were in on the memo? or you read it on a web forum?

apple doesn't tell us much (if anything). yet ppl seem to think they know what apple is thinking. amusing, anyway...
Click to expand...
The macOS 10.16 references in Big Sur are a bit of a give away. It suggests the final decision to call it macOS 11 was made fairly recently. The first few betas even showed up as macOS 10.16 in software update. Not sure if they finally fixed that.
 
n-evo said:
The first few betas even showed up as macOS 10.16 in software update. Not sure if they finally fixed that.
Click to expand...

Has been fixed, yeah.

Ironically the full name change in OS to 11 instead of 10.x actually broke some software that checked that you were on a Mac by asking if the system number was 10.x, but the example I had is fixed now
 
apple_iBoy said:
...But fresh paint doesn’t equal a new house. Seems a marketing decision more than a technological one.
Click to expand...
Seriously? Under the hood, this is probably the biggest upgrade since OS X's original upgrade from OS9. If you think an updated GUI is all Big Sur is offering, you're sorely mistaken.
 
MacGizmo said:
Seriously? Under the hood, this is probably the biggest upgrade since OS X's original upgrade from OS9. If you think an updated GUI is all Big Sur is offering, you're sorely mistaken.
Click to expand...

It is? How so?

I haven't read anything to that effect from developers. There are changes for sure, but nothing so far out of the ordinary. I actually think Catalina did more under the hood stuff, if anything.

Well, with the very big exception of Big Sur adding Apple Silicon support. But OS X has switched architectures before, and it didn't warrant a name change back then...
 
Last edited:
I still think it would have made sense to make the first ARM ONLY 11, but not a big deal as it is just marketing as others have stated.
 
casperes1996 said:
Ironically the full name change in OS to 11 instead of 10.x actually broke some software that checked that you were on a Mac by asking if the system number was 10.x, but the example I had is fixed now
Click to expand...

Code that tests for versions is usually horribly broken. It was the same thing when OpenGL updated to version 3, all software broke because only checked the string suffix.


MacGizmo said:
Seriously? Under the hood, this is probably the biggest upgrade since OS X's original upgrade from OS9. If you think an updated GUI is all Big Sur is offering, you're sorely mistaken.
Click to expand...

And you know this how? There was some intimidation of the Obj-C runtime and some new APIs, but that’s about the gist of major changes I could gather.
 
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