Is it time for OS XI (OS 11)

[Shinerkyd]

While yes, OS X is a brand, and for the better part of a decade has been the backing of one of the world's most intuitive and stable operating systems, it has been done over and over.

OS X has had the amazing ability to become a brand name well known not only throughout the Apple user world, but the throughout the technology based community. Technology based meaning most computer users know when someone says OS X they mean the Macintosh operating system.

As for moving on to OS XI or OS 11 I have to be in favor of doing so. OS X has offered a continued, revolutionary build and simplistic, yet effect way of making an operating system. One that allows someone who has never seen a computer in their life to simply understand it.

That is not the question or issue at hand though. The time for the Macintosh operating system to "grow up," or get more than just a face lift has come, in my opinion.

OS X .? < whatever continuously utilizes the basic look and technology of its previous version. Now, before you go off on how advanced it has become take a deep breath and relax. I know OS X done leaps and bounds in its abilities and what is has to offer to the "every day Mac user." I am not discounting that by any means. What I am suggesting is that Apple takes the last (with Mavericks) 12 years of experience and offer something revolutionary as far as the Macintosh operating system is concerned and totally re-do it.

We have had a wonderful ride from Cheetah to Mountain Lion, to now Mavericks in the OS X series, but it is time to up the game.

I honestly feel that Apple has learned, upgraded, etc enough that they can honestly let the decade+ of OS X (as a brand) go, and catch up to the OS's of today that would integrate iOS and OS (11+) together almost as one seamless operating system.

OS X started off as a revolutionary operating system for the latest and greatest in computer technology, and ended up becoming a brand recognized around the world. Yet when it comes to software of any kind a brand must evolve with the times, and that included its look, feel, abilities, even its name sake.

Apple has a way of bringing the best of technology out, yet at it's own pace, and consumers, by in large consumers have placed the Apple brand with suitability, a lasting product, etc. That being said Apple doesn't "always" stay with the latest and greatest technology like other platforms and developers do, ever wondered why?

Apple prides itself on stability along with state of the art technology. Now has does that play into Apple not releasing hardware/software combos with the latest?

The answer is simple. Technology comes out, and while yes it has been beta tested and what not, the technology though is not bullet-proof. So rather than incorporate the latest and greatest technology, Apple holds out until the technology has come to a point of perfection in which issues are known and resolved. ie. Windows blue screen of death. If you, and yes someone has to, just push release after release after beta your system will most likely not be stable, that's just statistics. So Apple bides their time, allows both software and hardware fix the kinks and then releases.

This can be frustrating for many, but it makes perfect "elite" business sense. There is a reason Apple products cost more than other brands. Consumers have the assurance of time told quality. And yes this can be irritating to some, but for those who want quality that lasts with minimum headaches it's worth the wait and cost.

All of that to say that OS XI or OS 11 or whatever they call it, in my opinion, has to be and will be a revolutionary OS that will A) bring the Macintosh operating system into the generation of mobility, touch screen and pure streaming, as well as the seamless (yet always growing, and decreasing difference) between mobile and desktop/laptop operating systems.

The future is not about iOS ? or OS X ? or OS ? it's about seamlessly adapting the technologies into one fluid system, and OS XI or OS 11 or w/e it is may just well be that endeavor.

 

[meme1255]

I'll answer question in title with one word: NO!

 

[Giuly]

What exactly is it that OS X needs to catch up to, full-screen apps like Windows 8? They existed since Lion (the two little arrows are the top-right of the windows), and unlike Windows 8, they don't look like applications designed for handicapped people when used with a mouse or trackpad on a desktop computer.

 

[fullauto]

One would imagine as soon as a 11" / 13" air touch is availble there would be little need to bring the two together. The next step onwards from an air touch would be to add cellular / an antenna (several patents and a prototype already exist). Maybe some sort of projector.. Projected keyboard.. Full siri capabilities..

Hope it's not too far away..

 

[sandy-locke]

All of that to say that OS XI or OS 11 or whatever they call it, in my opinion, has to be and will be a revolutionary OS that will A) bring the Macintosh operating system into the generation of mobility, touch screen and pure streaming, as well as the seamless (yet always growing, and decreasing difference) between mobile and desktop/laptop operating systems.

I so hope it will never happen!

Pure streaming OS? Like googleOS? Really?

And full touchscreen desktop os? For work? Really?

Mobile Os on desktop? For what purpose? Don't you think that it's good to have OS's for mobility devices and OS's for desktop ? Did you ever try to work with full productivity on a mobile OS, even ios? It's good for occasional stuffs, but when you need great precision and quickness, you can't beat keyboard and mouse. Yet to see a revolutionnary way to control computers coming. And it's so not a question of habits right now. Instead a question of good alternatives.

 

[Shinerkyd]

Ok maybe I should have been more clear about what I meant.

As far as: A) bring the Macintosh operating system into the generation of mobility, touch screen and pure streaming, as well as the seamless (yet always growing, and decreasing difference) between mobile and desktop/laptop operating systems.

I am not saying that it would be iOS for the desktop/laptop version, but would incorporate the abilities to work on one and have it on the other, like Air Drop in a sense, but for everything.

I think it rather naive to think that desktop OS's will remain as they are, in a sense "separate" from mobile OS's. More and more people are doing things other than simple e-mails on the go with their smartphones and tablets, so to have a desktop OS that works seamlessly with that isn't an outrageous thought by any stretch of the imagination.

To be able to move from working from your phone directly to your desktop seamlessly would be very beneficial to many types of people, and I don't see how that would hurt anyone in any way. Don't forget that OS X has TONS of options that some people use and some don't, but they are options that are there, and that is what I am saying, have the options available.

Touchscreen argument...the ability to have the option to have a touch screen does not mean that you MUST use it, but the option is there. We are so used to our keyboards and mice that the thought of losing them terrifies people because of the technology that the general public has today isn't "sophisticated" enough yet, but it is out there.

I don't recall mentioning anything about Windows 8's look or feel....and am certainly not implying that OS X and beyond should look or feel like it.

I am saying that OS X is a great OS and has had great upgrades, but I think the time is near to move on to the next OS. And for people to think that Apple will keep OS X indefinitely is a tad presumptuous.

 

[ErikGrim]

I think it rather naive to think that desktop OS's will remain as they are, in a sense "separate" from mobile OS's.

Because that worked SO WELL for Microsoft. Actually laughing tears here.

What is naive is to think you CAN make one OS do well on both desktops/laptops and mobile. To think you can have one OS fit the needs of completely different paradigms. Microsoft have truly well and proven what an asinine strategy that was. Jack of all trades, master of none, useless to everyone.

 

[Cougarcat]

When they announced their new set of codenames, they said they needed to pick something for OS X that would last them another ten years. Trying to make one OS that works with two very different input methods results in a mess. Apple knows this, and the two will remain separate.

 

[Shinerkyd]

Because that worked SO WELL for Microsoft. Actually laughing tears here.

What is naive is to think you CAN make one OS do well on both desktops/laptops and mobile. To think you can have one OS fit the needs of completely different paradigms. Microsoft have truly well and proven what an asinine strategy that was. Jack of all trades, master of none, useless to everyone.

What's TRULY naive is to think that technology is stagnate, in a world of pre-definitions that simply cannot be subject to change. Simple fact of the matter is this, the mobility of iOS and other OS based systems and OS X and other desktop based systems WILL merge. It's not about if, but when, and to think that they will simply always be separate is rather humorous, then again I look at history and where we came from to where we currently are, not, oh no that's so Star Trek, which in its own right, many aspects are taking shape in consumers hands today.

To say, oh that worked so well for Windows is also a tad presumptuous. I mean, there is a key difference between Apple and Microsoft, Apple doesn't take the newest, latest and greatest technology out there and push it out as soon as it is available like Microsoft (that being said someone does have to) rather Apple takes the time to allow a product or technology to grow and mature into perfection before implementing it. So to say that worked so well for Windows is widely off from the facts that I am presenting.

I am of the 80's/90's, I saw first hand how computers radically changed from moment to moment, how operating systems went from code to GUI to touch screen and more. I saw my dad's old Audi with a "car phone" to now having a mini computer in my hand with my iPhone, so no I don't think my ideas or what I see in the future is off at all, only when will it happen because I've seen (roughly) where we started to where we are now, and I don't oppose the future, rather I look forward to it. Simply put, because I know that companies like Apple will continue to shock and amaze people with the stability and the ease of tomorrow's technology in the hands of today's consumers.

----------

When they announced their new set of codenames, they said they needed to pick something for OS X that would last them another ten years. Trying to make one OS that works with two very different input methods results in a mess. Apple knows this, and the two will remain separate.

Look back 10 years ago, on all aspects of desktop/laptop computing and mobile devices to today, I don't see things remaining how they are in 2023 as they are in 2013, but that's just, again, simply looking at history and the evolution of technology.

While yes they may say they want to make OS X (as a brand) last 10 more years, but that holds little weight when it comes down to the reality of changing times. And perhaps right NOW merging an iOS and OS X operating system may be a mess, but they will merge, it is inevitable in time, and I wouldn't put a year timing on that (ie. 10-15 years) because technology does one thing that holds true among ALL else, it only get's faster, it has NEVER slowed down or stayed the same.

 

[mrchinchilla]

All you need to do is take a look at their business model – regurgitating the same products year after year with little change (see iPhone, iPad and the few and far-between updates to MBP/Mac Pro lines) as they can get away with it because—the truth is—the current userbase is stupid enough to keep buying them. The same sadly goes for their software, too.

This is coming from someone who has supported Apple since the mid nineties when it really wasn't a great time to be an Apple user. Following OS X, things improved to the point that the company had enough disposable income to make somewhat "risky" ventures (iPod and later on the iPhone) which turned out to both be massive successes; Apple became a true "player" in the electronic devices market and a leader in the smartphones market and started to make real money, causing them to concentrate more—and now, pretty much solely—on these devices (brand name changing from Apple Computers Inc. to Apple Inc.). Obviously meaning that resources originally intended for the development of OS X and their Macintosh lines would be diverted to iOS/iPhone development. As it stands, the profits they make from the iPhone alone is more than enough to sustain the company, and it's gotten to the point where they really don't give a **** about their computers, OS X or their users due to the "status" of the brand name being enough to keep people buying their products even if they're less than competitive.

Is it time for a new Mac OS? Yes, but there's little chance of them changing the already well-established "OS X" brand name, at least not until it's forced to marry with iOS. With HFS+ being one of the few dinosaur file systems still used by a major OS... not mentioning other inherent problems: an overhaul of OS X is long-overdue. However, they're doing what they know will sell; they're catering for the 'needs' of the majority of their userbase: they want flashy social media "apps" and other asinine non-features. And unfortunately that means that users like myself, who stood by Apple through the horrific early days and stuck through OS X's growing pains, get pushed aside to make way for the herds of hipster teens with parents with more money than sense.

The only next major change to OS X will be the amalgamation of OS X and iOS. I hope I'm proven wrong. I hope Apple release 10.10 in over a year's time that's a true improvement over the current iteration, but it seems less than likely.

 

[0007776]

iOS is already based on OS X and as far as the UI goes they are about as integrated as makes sense for an operating system on a tablet/phone and a computer to be. The reason tablets didn't catch on before the iPad was everyone tried to put a desktop OS on them, and desktops with a mobile OS won't do well either.

Of course if Apple ever changes the OS X branding it probably would be because they are moving away from a Unix base for the OS, and what would you suggest they move to now?

 

[Shinerkyd]

I agree, at least for the most part to each of you. I do though still stand by the ideology that a desktop and mobile OS will eventually merge into, more or less, one seamless OS.

Now I am not saying that we are there yet, nor that the understanding of how to marry to two together is ripe for the picking, yet. With more and more people on the go and using mobile OS like iOS to complete what was formerly only available on a desktop OS I still believe that, in time, the merge will happen.

I think something that most of you are saying is, that just can't happen, look at how company X tried and it failed, etc. The only flaw I see in that argument is the lack to look ahead instead of either to the past or current innovations.

I, basically, understand Apple's business model, and as for the part of them wanting to make money, that's what almost every business model's bottom line is, that's just business.

The reason I have stuck with Macintosh and now iMac's etc is simply because I believe that they are quality products that can easily outlast their competitors while remaining stable.

When it comes to a next OS XI or whatever, I don't see why that would necessarily would mean that Apple would move away from UNIX. I know this can be used against me in my argument, but if it isn't broken don't fix it. Rather upgrade and make improvements to it, moving it to a better place that increases the versatility of the product or technology. Can UNIX be upgraded and changed for the better or here and tomorrow? Yes, that is just obvious. That doesn't mean that it has to stay with its current coding logic, as for everything, things have to change to deal with the times, and the underlying bases for the system is no different.