who cares??
I don't care if its called kitty as long as it continues to have awsome features that windoze doesnt!
I don't care if its called kitty as long as it continues to have awsome features that windoze doesnt!
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.
Mac OS X 10.4: Tiger
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
montecristo said:
Yeah, I've thought the same thing from time to time. Eventually the will get to 10.9, and then there's no place to go. OSX XP maybe.
Foxer said:
Mac OS X isn't the longest running OS in Apple history. They've just decided to put off the Mac OS XI naming scheme that is going to be REALLY ugly, so instead of doing full integer increases for major operating systems, they've relegated it to the tenths digit.
How I've always thought of it is that "Mac OS X" is the operating system name, and then you have the version number. The "X" isn't part of the version number, it's to indicate that it's a totally redesigned operating system. As such, "Mac OS 11" wouldn't be appropriate because that incorporates X into the version number and decreases the difference between the Classic Mac OS. So that's why the version number increases have been scaled down as opposed to the Classic Mac OS days.
"Mac OS X" is really just the operating system moniker, like "Mac OS" or "System". So "Mac OS X" isn't the longest running operating system from Apple, "System" is. After all, we went all the way through System 7.5.5 before they renamed it to the "Mac OS".
As I've already told Arn, there is a little bit more info on that article, not a lot, but still:
.The Internal build of Tiger is 8A85(the "A" means its still on Alpha)
. And that it uses Safari v133 as oposed to v125.1 that 10.3.3 uses
And that's all
.The Internal build of Tiger is 8A85(the "A" means its still on Alpha)
. And that it uses Safari v133 as oposed to v125.1 that 10.3.3 uses
And that's all
notmenotyou said:in this case, my only option is to wait for the "tiger" pre-installed G5 PowerBook!
i don't quite understand. you CAN afford a $2,000-$3,000+ laptop, but CAN NOT afford a $129 OS? am i correct on this?
We can get all excited just by hearing what the name of the next Mac OS X version will be!
So cool!
I love being a Mac lover
So cool!
I love being a Mac lover
Foxer said:
Steve Jobs has said that OS X should last the better part of this decade (until 2010, maybe even past). OS X really denotes the Unix core. Since earlier Mac OSes shared a similar core, you may say that each iteration of OS X is like a step up in the earlier Mac OS. I know that you can't compare them directly, but think of the update from 10.1 to 10.2 as being similar to the update from OS 6 to OS 7. DOn't expect a shift to OS 11 without a radical shift from the FreeBSD version of Unix that Apple has based Mac OS X on.
[guess I jumped in late on this one. But SJ did make that decade comment at a keynote within the last couple of years (sorry that I don't remember which one. Maybe someone else knows.)]
Tiger works for me
And to tone down the cries about $129, I'll repeat what I've said before:
There have only been three paid versions of OS X: 10.0, 10.2, and 10.3 (remember: 10.1 was free). So there have only been TWO periods between paid versions: 17 months and 14 months. Which kind of puts into perspective when people complain about having to pay every year.
People often overlook three things when they complain that Apple advances Mac OS X too quickly:
First, regarding cost, $129 is NOT "full" price, it's an upgrade to whatever version of Mac OS (8? 9?) you already own. Some expect OS X should ship at two different prices--like a new version of Photoshop or Office--but that would only make sense if there were buyers who did not ALREADY own Mac OS. Apple has never sold Macs without Mac OS, so there IS no "standalone"/"first purchase" price for OS X. Everyone's first Mac OS purchase is simply bundled WITH a Mac.
Second, regarding version numbers, 10.3 (etc.) is NOT just a "point release" as some people like to pretend. Many companies use a decimal point for minor updates, and change the main version number for every major update. But Apple doesn't anymore. They have a known brand (and logo) for Mac OS X, and they want to stick with that for now. So they put the major number after the 10. 10.3 is like Mac OS 13. One look at the feature list of Panther will make clear that it is no minor release. The number is not what's important, is it?
Third, regarding timing, OS X was a new OS, and thus initially it was subject to faster improvement and more frequent upgrades. That's very desirable in a new product! But the update rate slows down over time--and that's clearly been the case with OS X:
Mac OS X Public Beta: 9/13/2000
$30 (free shipping, like all versions), all credited towards purchase of 10.0.
...6 months...
10.0 Cheeta: 3/24/2001
$129 upgrade from all earlier versions of Mac OS. ($99 for Public Beta users.)
...6 months...
10.1 Puma: 9/29/2001
Free to 10.0 owners, $129 upgrade from all pre-X versions. Given away at CompUSA and other stores. (Mac users who have been with OS X from the beta days have still only paid for it once.)
...11 months...
10.2 Jaguar: 8/24/2002
$129 upgrade from all earlier versions of Mac OS.
...14 months...
10.3 Panther: 10/24/2003
$129 upgrade from all earlier versions of Mac OS.
...more than 14 months?...
10.4 ?
So the upgrade cycle, in months, has been: 6 - 6 - 11 - 14 (with two free versions early on). Apple's rate of change has naturally slowed as the OS has matured.
Panther took 3 months longer than Jaguar. What if 10.4 takes 3 months longer (17 months) than Panther? 10.4 would then be released in late March 2005. Or if development STOPS slowing down and 10.4 only takes 14 months again... that's still late December 2004. So even if 10.4 takes the same or slightly less time than 10.3, Apple might still wait a few days to release it in 2005. That would please the vocal people who think Apple should move slower: there would be NO paid releases in 2004.
And remember that earliest reports and developer previews of a new Mac OS often come out FAR ahead of the shipping product. So I think early 2005 is very likely for 10.4.
And if you don't like the features Apple offers in a given version... don't buy it. Buy every other upgrade, or stick with what works for as long as you like.
And to tone down the cries about $129, I'll repeat what I've said before:
There have only been three paid versions of OS X: 10.0, 10.2, and 10.3 (remember: 10.1 was free). So there have only been TWO periods between paid versions: 17 months and 14 months. Which kind of puts into perspective when people complain about having to pay every year.
People often overlook three things when they complain that Apple advances Mac OS X too quickly:
First, regarding cost, $129 is NOT "full" price, it's an upgrade to whatever version of Mac OS (8? 9?) you already own. Some expect OS X should ship at two different prices--like a new version of Photoshop or Office--but that would only make sense if there were buyers who did not ALREADY own Mac OS. Apple has never sold Macs without Mac OS, so there IS no "standalone"/"first purchase" price for OS X. Everyone's first Mac OS purchase is simply bundled WITH a Mac.
Second, regarding version numbers, 10.3 (etc.) is NOT just a "point release" as some people like to pretend. Many companies use a decimal point for minor updates, and change the main version number for every major update. But Apple doesn't anymore. They have a known brand (and logo) for Mac OS X, and they want to stick with that for now. So they put the major number after the 10. 10.3 is like Mac OS 13. One look at the feature list of Panther will make clear that it is no minor release. The number is not what's important, is it?
Third, regarding timing, OS X was a new OS, and thus initially it was subject to faster improvement and more frequent upgrades. That's very desirable in a new product! But the update rate slows down over time--and that's clearly been the case with OS X:
Mac OS X Public Beta: 9/13/2000
$30 (free shipping, like all versions), all credited towards purchase of 10.0.
...6 months...
10.0 Cheeta: 3/24/2001
$129 upgrade from all earlier versions of Mac OS. ($99 for Public Beta users.)
...6 months...
10.1 Puma: 9/29/2001
Free to 10.0 owners, $129 upgrade from all pre-X versions. Given away at CompUSA and other stores. (Mac users who have been with OS X from the beta days have still only paid for it once.)
...11 months...
10.2 Jaguar: 8/24/2002
$129 upgrade from all earlier versions of Mac OS.
...14 months...
10.3 Panther: 10/24/2003
$129 upgrade from all earlier versions of Mac OS.
...more than 14 months?...
10.4 ?
So the upgrade cycle, in months, has been: 6 - 6 - 11 - 14 (with two free versions early on). Apple's rate of change has naturally slowed as the OS has matured.
Panther took 3 months longer than Jaguar. What if 10.4 takes 3 months longer (17 months) than Panther? 10.4 would then be released in late March 2005. Or if development STOPS slowing down and 10.4 only takes 14 months again... that's still late December 2004. So even if 10.4 takes the same or slightly less time than 10.3, Apple might still wait a few days to release it in 2005. That would please the vocal people who think Apple should move slower: there would be NO paid releases in 2004.
And remember that earliest reports and developer previews of a new Mac OS often come out FAR ahead of the shipping product. So I think early 2005 is very likely for 10.4.
And if you don't like the features Apple offers in a given version... don't buy it. Buy every other upgrade, or stick with what works for as long as you like.
Another update already
I think it's funny that a company that can release some software they they call 'state of the art' every year. I only upgraded to Panther because I was fooled by the 150+ new features. I say i use maybe 10 of those 150 features are useable. I want a complete list of what these so called new features are. If your SW is so stable why update it every year. I'm all for change, but atleast give me something that's worth changing for.
I think it's funny that a company that can release some software they they call 'state of the art' every year. I only upgraded to Panther because I was fooled by the 150+ new features. I say i use maybe 10 of those 150 features are useable. I want a complete list of what these so called new features are. If your SW is so stable why update it every year. I'm all for change, but atleast give me something that's worth changing for.
Guess again
Haberdasher, Check again the tiger dwarfs the lion in size and would kill it in a fight. The lion just sits about doing bugger all all day whilst it sends the females out to kill. It's no match, the Tiger would have a Lion.
Haberdasher, Check again the tiger dwarfs the lion in size and would kill it in a fight. The lion just sits about doing bugger all all day whilst it sends the females out to kill. It's no match, the Tiger would have a Lion.
Tiger doesn't have Apple naming style
I have a hard time believing "Tiger" is the final name.
It sounds too bland, too unimaginative for Apple's engineers to have put their heart and soul into it. Tiger is a name for a toddler's furry stuffed toy, not a state of the art computer OS.
Even if it was contributed by marketing people, it doesn't have the right sense of mystery and exoticness to associate with an Apple product.
Shakespeare may have said, "What's in a name?" But Marketing 101 tells us, "A hell of a lot."
I have a hard time believing "Tiger" is the final name.
It sounds too bland, too unimaginative for Apple's engineers to have put their heart and soul into it. Tiger is a name for a toddler's furry stuffed toy, not a state of the art computer OS.
Even if it was contributed by marketing people, it doesn't have the right sense of mystery and exoticness to associate with an Apple product.
Shakespeare may have said, "What's in a name?" But Marketing 101 tells us, "A hell of a lot."
Sun
And the windows would fold sideways to reveal the desktop and the title of windows was written down the side of the window. The "minimised" windows were MASSIVE. I really couldn't see the point.
However, coming back to that desktop. What would be really cool is if you could place icons and windows in the distance, behind that rocky outcrop just to the left of the cactus. Because we remember things spatially, even if the icon was infinitessimally small it wouldn't matter because we would be more likely to remember where we put it. We could keep things strewn about our 3d landscape desktops and still know where things were. Much more could be stored this way.
Think about it like this. Imagine you're looking for your cheesegrater. In front of you you have a dozen shelves each with a dozen objects on of roughly equal size. There's your cheesegrater, a shoe, a telephone, a cuddly toy etc etc.
Picking out your chessegrater isn't too difficult when you only have a few items to choose from but the more items you have the harder your task becomes as you have to scan all the roughly equally sized objects.
Now forget the grid like shelf structure.
Where's your cheesegrater?
Second cupboard on the right in the kitchen, bottom shelf behind the plates.
Easy!
I think Sun dropped the ball with that one and someone needs to pick it up and place it in the foreground.
I didn't think the Sun demo went nearly far enough. Things may have changed in more recent builds but from the demo I saw I remember a desertscape rocky background picture right?
And the windows would fold sideways to reveal the desktop and the title of windows was written down the side of the window. The "minimised" windows were MASSIVE. I really couldn't see the point.
However, coming back to that desktop. What would be really cool is if you could place icons and windows in the distance, behind that rocky outcrop just to the left of the cactus. Because we remember things spatially, even if the icon was infinitessimally small it wouldn't matter because we would be more likely to remember where we put it. We could keep things strewn about our 3d landscape desktops and still know where things were. Much more could be stored this way.
Think about it like this. Imagine you're looking for your cheesegrater. In front of you you have a dozen shelves each with a dozen objects on of roughly equal size. There's your cheesegrater, a shoe, a telephone, a cuddly toy etc etc.
Picking out your chessegrater isn't too difficult when you only have a few items to choose from but the more items you have the harder your task becomes as you have to scan all the roughly equally sized objects.
Now forget the grid like shelf structure.
Where's your cheesegrater?
Second cupboard on the right in the kitchen, bottom shelf behind the plates.
Easy!
I think Sun dropped the ball with that one and someone needs to pick it up and place it in the foreground.
Stella said:
Let me get this straight. Jaguar and Panther inventive. Tiger isn't?!!? It's a feline name. What kind of innovation do you need!??!?! The thought process of some people amazes me.
I personally like it. Tigers are one of the strongest most beautiful of the Big cats. Bring it on.
bonk said:
You aren't far off. Apple once nicknamed the OS they were developing for the CHRP Pink. Made the cover of Macworld magazine.
OS XI = Pink Panther?
jayscheuerle
macrumors 68020
MacBoyX said:
You're forgetting:
Windows 98 Second Edition
Windows ME
Not to menton that MS upgrades are twice what Apple's are.
Where are the Lion's??
Funny, but I haven't seen Lion (king of the cats). At least they haven't put "Civet" into that list Have a hard time seeing "It's a OSX-like operating system".
Lion would be cool (way more powerful and cooler than a tiger imo).
Funny, but I haven't seen Lion (king of the cats). At least they haven't put "Civet" into that list
Have a hard time seeing "It's a OSX-like operating system".Lion would be cool (way more powerful and cooler than a tiger imo).