Leopard and the future

[evanrousso]

So based on Apple's release cycle we should be seeing 10.6 in a year and a half to two years. My prediction is that we won't see a 10.6, or at least a 10.7. I think OS XI is up next. Here is why:

It is pretty much the general opinion that Tiger was pretty solid and stable, Leopard brought an infrastructure for the intel machines and core animation, as well as some cool new features. The could continue to tighten up the OS through future releases but to be honest I don't believe that desktop OS' are very long for this world. I believe, like many, that the web based OS will dominate in the next few years, leaving Apple in a position to either continue to upgrade its desktop OS, or to jump ahead to OS XI as a web based OS.

I just don't think the OS X line will last up to 10.10.

Any Thoughts?

 

[Much Ado]

Exactly what does 10.XI mean? Leopard lays the foundations for a faster, better OSX for years to come. Why suddenly change the inner-workings of the OS, when Leopard finally seems to have untied any last knots that might have existed there? Not to mention D-trace coming along as well.

We may well not get to 10.10, but don't even think about ruling out 10.6 or 10.7

A web-based OS is a long way off yet.

 

[evanrousso]

Exactly what does 10.XI mean? Leopard lays the foundations for a faster, better OSX for years to come. Why suddenly change the inner-workings of the OS, when Leopard finally seems to have untied any last knots that might have existed there? Not to mention D-trace coming along as well.

We may well not get to 10.10, but don't even think about ruling out 10.6 or 10.7

A web-based OS is a long way off yet.

I meant OS XI (as in eleven).

I don't know man, think about where tech was 3 years ago and now. Who knows what 3 more years will bring.

 

[mainstreetmark]

First of all, I'm so opposed to "web based" that it's not even worth rattling on about.

But, as far as the 'X' series goes, I think we'll get some functional stuff out of it like resolution independence and stuff like that.

For there to be a 'XI', or anything post 'X' (the 'X' is such a brand now, that it'll be tough to have a "Oh Ess Ecks Ay") is going to be a paradaigm shift, or the replacement of one of the foundation metaphors we use to interface.

For example, an entire touch screen device which eliminates the mouse. A system such as this will require that most apps be rewritten (factually, redesigned) to take advantage of the new interface, and the older X-series apps will likely linger around in the same way OS9 apps limbo'd on for a few years. You simply don't interface directly with apps in the same inefficient manner you do with a mouse, so new apps, new OS... a paradigm shift.

Perhaps a less drastic step is the elimination (or evolution) of the Folder metaphor. It's simply becoming archaic to glob files inside of folders, when they may have multiple related uses. A folder could be replaced with a 'keyword', and suddenly single files find homes not in folders but in mental processes. Files get lumped together based on relationships to each other rather than how the user happens to arrange them. I could explain it more with multiple paragraphs, but, think of *everything* as a Smart Folder, which allows files to attach to each other both intelligently as well as manually (like we do now).

 

[MBX]

web-based os: "sorry your wi-fi connection is too low to proceed with this program." or "can't login, not connected to the internet."

yeah right.

sorry but web-based os is bullcrap. it makes sense for google apps/ email stuff. for serious computing not.

i think apple will create new innovations for next os' (multi-touch, resolution independence, more coreanimation goodness, performance, etc.)

 

[tyr2]

IIRC Steve said OS X was designed to stick around for 20 years and I can't see any reason why not really.

The OS X name applies as much to the kernel and back end workings as it does to any interface which could be changed dramatically and still stay within the OS X envelope.

OS X is the OS brand, just like Windows is. The 'X' is as important to the brand as much as it's a version identifier. The Tiger/Leopard XP/Vista names sufficing to define versions of the brand.

Perhaps we'll see an OS X, 2 at some point (with a snappier name) but I'd suggest that we'll be with OS X for a long time.

 

[applesith]

IIRC Steve said OS X was designed to stick around for 20 years and I can't see any reason why not really.

The OS X name applies as much to the kernel and back end workings as it does to any interface which could be changed dramatically and still stay within the OS X envelope.

OS X is the OS brand, just like Windows is. The 'X' is as important to the brand as much as it's a version identifier. The Tiger/Leopard XP/Vista names sufficing to define versions of the brand.

Perhaps we'll see an OS X, 2 at some point (with a snappier name) but I'd suggest that we'll be with OS X for a long time.

I agree. OS X is now the brand name.

 

[Much Ado]

I agree. OS X is now the brand name.

I disagree. OSX is not just a brand, changing periodically when it suits Apple. OSX is the OSX we all moved to those years back.

 

[Selenolycus]

From my perspective, "Apple Mac OS X" is as much a product name as "Microsoft Windows." It's not going to change unless there's an enormous shift in concept, design, and focus.