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 Y
- Thread starter MentalFabric
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
jayscheuerle
macrumors 68020
Here's the thing.
OSX was a complete shift from the entire previous generation of Mac OSes. OSX is what we are working on and simply its version numbers will change until there is another RADICAL change in the OS, not just the tweaks that we've had for the past 4 years. The version numbers will slow down and we'll never even GET to 11.0. The paradigm shift that follows OSX can have a completely unrelated name like "Fondue" and just start over with version numbers again. There will be no reason for an OSXI. The shift at that point would be cheapened by showing a connection to OSX.
We can review this in another 8 years or so I guess...
OSX was a complete shift from the entire previous generation of Mac OSes. OSX is what we are working on and simply its version numbers will change until there is another RADICAL change in the OS, not just the tweaks that we've had for the past 4 years. The version numbers will slow down and we'll never even GET to 11.0. The paradigm shift that follows OSX can have a completely unrelated name like "Fondue" and just start over with version numbers again. There will be no reason for an OSXI. The shift at that point would be cheapened by showing a connection to OSX.
We can review this in another 8 years or so I guess...
In many past other threads about this same topic, it's been pretty much settled that OS X will not go all the way up to 10.9 (or as everyone forgets, it could go up to 10.34.0.), but rather stop at 10.5 or 10.6 and then go a year or two with no updates until OS 11 is out.MacNut said:
If we go by your logic, OS 11 won't be out until 2015.
While OS X is a great OS, it can't and will not last until much beyond 2010 (even with large Tiger-like updates every two years).
Perhaps Apple will make some bigger leap that none of us expects, such as declaring "operating systems" a thing of the past (or at least a phrase of the past) and inventing something to replace it, such as, ... um, ... er, ..., well that's their job.
If they call it "VSCMF", for virtual service component manager framework, I don't think the marketing department would like it. But at least they could start a new numbering sequence.
On second thought, I like the idea of changing from the Roman alphabet to the Greek alphabet. We don't want Mac OS alpha or Mac OS beta because of "being tested" implications, so I recommend Mac OS Δ because "delta" represents "change".
If they call it "VSCMF", for virtual service component manager framework, I don't think the marketing department would like it. But at least they could start a new numbering sequence.
On second thought, I like the idea of changing from the Roman alphabet to the Greek alphabet. We don't want Mac OS alpha or Mac OS beta because of "being tested" implications, so I recommend Mac OS Δ because "delta" represents "change".
Since we're going all cross-cultural with Asian, Greek and whatever alphabets, the patriot in me is saying Apple should aim at something more Aboriginal. In many Aboriginal dialects, their number system simply comprises:
And the world's problems are solved...
- 1
- 2
- many
And the world's problems are solved...
Google is your friend! I'm not that stylishmad jew said:I'm not even gonna ask how you came across that!
MentalFabric said:Google is your friend! I'm not that stylish
Just don't bookmark it.
That's only the second time I've ever seen an underwear ad with a guy cooking a fish on a BBQ. Such a rarity these days.
It also works out nice that "X" is the buzz letter or in some way, "word" of this current period of time.
with things line Xtreme, MotoX, cyberX, and many others, the X is a "trendy" thing to say and goes well with Apple, who tends to keep on top of the current trends.
I have a feeling that whatever the newer OS's are called, they will have a trend setting name that will give it great appeal just from it's name. OS X is much more trendy then , Whistler (early name of XP) or Longhorn (not sure WHAT that production name will be).
just my thoughts..
840
with things line Xtreme, MotoX, cyberX, and many others, the X is a "trendy" thing to say and goes well with Apple, who tends to keep on top of the current trends.
I have a feeling that whatever the newer OS's are called, they will have a trend setting name that will give it great appeal just from it's name. OS X is much more trendy then , Whistler (early name of XP) or Longhorn (not sure WHAT that production name will be).
just my thoughts..
840
Plymouthbreezer said:In many past other threads about this same topic, it's been pretty much settled that OS X will not go all the way up to 10.9 (or as everyone forgets, it could go up to 10.34.0.), but rather stop at 10.5 or 10.6 and then go a year or two with no updates until OS 11 is out.
If we go by your logic, OS 11 won't be out until 2015.
While OS X is a great OS, it can't and will not last until much beyond 2010 (even with large Tiger-like updates every two years).
OS X will stop at 10.6 because MacRumors members decided so in a forum thread?
Steve Jobs said at the time of OS X's release that it would be the OS to lead the Mac for the next decade. Expect another five years of OS X. After that, I find it hard for marketability reasons to expect everyone to use "OS XI." It doesn't look good on the box or on paper. "OS 11" looks better, but even better is dropping the number and using the codenames to refer to new versions, which they're already doing now. It would still be OS 11.x. It just wouldn't use the number on the boxes or the website. By this time, they might not be using animal names anymore and might start going with more marketable, "professional" codenames, though Tiger and Jaguar were pretty good ones for their worth.
That's how I might do it, anyway.
This is one of the most pointless threads ever
OS9 then OS10 (X), then probably OS11....seriously who cares but OS Y??
Pleeeease.
OS9 then OS10 (X), then probably OS11....seriously who cares but OS Y??
Pleeeease.
I distinctly remember that Jobs had said that the "X", in addition to being "ten" in Roman numerals, was meant to relate the product with it's unix roots.\
I also seem to recall the OS 9 was originally slated to be OS 8.7, but they pushed it to 9 to better ramp up to OS X.
I also seem to recall the OS 9 was originally slated to be OS 8.7, but they pushed it to 9 to better ramp up to OS X.
slooksterPSV said:
I overheard a salesman talking to a customer in a Staples store. The salesman was showing the customer a 104-key Microsoft-branded keyboard. The customer said something like: "Where's me, oh, there, yes, me, that's me, so this'll work with me."
Many of our fine suggestions have now been ruled out. Steve Jobs, in the WWDC keynote speech, said that Mac OS X was now set for the next 10 years. So X won't change to Y anytime soon.
Yeah, they originally said 15 years from X but i was kind hoping it'd be out around the same time as longhornDoctor Q said:
Actually, strangely enough Apple changed from "System" to "Mac OS" with Mac OS 7.6. It went from System 7.5.5 to Mac OS 7.6 and then continued with Mac OS 8. I guess they thought it was such a good idea, they couldn't wait until the release of 8 to make the change.Bakey said: