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.
Mavericks' Successor: Mac 11
- Thread starter Arekusandaa
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Exactly. My point is that it's much simpler, and ultimately more informative to them to direct them to Wikipedia. It can prevent the "Me: Ahhhhhhh!" conditions from arising.
To his defense, 10.1 and 10.10 are the same when using them in math. However version numbers work differently obviously.
Sure, because version numbers aren't math. Version 1.1 isn't 1/10th of the way from version 1 to version 2, either.
The reason it's called OS 'ten' is because it was the successor to the previous classic OS which was 9.
As others have pointed out the X is simply the Roman numeral for ten and is used purely for marketing (and as a nod to Unix on which it is based). It has never been pronounced OS 'ex' except by those who mispronounce its name.
It is OS 'ten' and has been since its introduction over a decade ago.
I think if they were to completely rewrite the OS from scratch with no Unix base, then perhaps a new naming scheme would be introduced, but until that happens I believe OSX will remain.
Yes, I know the history very well and I have been pronouncing OS X as OS "ten".
But having said that, I really do think it should be pronounced as OS "ex". After all, the successor to the original Mac OS X Cheetah (10.0) was named Mac OS X Puma 10.1. Not Mac OS 11 Puma.
It's fair to say that Mac OS X represented a dramatic departure from classic Mac OS 9, which was still stuck with non-protected memory and cooperative multitasking (vs. full pre-emptive multitasking). And to many, X signifies UNIX-based underpinning. It is by all measure an entirely different OS.
Going beyond OS X would mean a completely new architecture. I don't see a reason for that... what OS X needs is a new filesystem and thats basically it... don't see any other immediate needs for improvement.
OS X and iOS are already the same OS, they share much of the codebase. How do you imagine them converging? Its a completely different device type with different input, output and usage.
OS X and iOS are already the same OS, they share much of the codebase. How do you imagine them converging? Its a completely different device type with different input, output and usage.
"OS X" is a name or brand.....the .1 .2 .3 .4 ... .9 is the different generations of the operating systems.
similar to Civic is name.......1st 2nd 3rd ....9th generation is the different generations of civics.
so when 10 or 11 or 12 comes around....they can still call it "OS X"...it will just be a different generation.
similar to when someone asks you "which Civic do you drive"....you reply " 2009, *which is the 8th gen*...Ex trim"
"which OSX are you using"....."Oh, maverick, but maverick DP4"
so the OS X can have the "X.infinite"
similar to Civic is name.......1st 2nd 3rd ....9th generation is the different generations of civics.
so when 10 or 11 or 12 comes around....they can still call it "OS X"...it will just be a different generation.
similar to when someone asks you "which Civic do you drive"....you reply " 2009, *which is the 8th gen*...Ex trim"
"which OSX are you using"....."Oh, maverick, but maverick DP4"
so the OS X can have the "X.infinite"
I know it's poor form, but that is the only reason needed to explain why they would choose to keep the OS X brand alive and well for years to come. (I like the OS X "----" moniker, so I think it's a good choice regardless)
Roman numerals and code words mean nothing when politics DO play a part in how a company operates. Toughen up, it's a big mean world out there.
Roman numerals and code words mean nothing when politics DO play a part in how a company operates. Toughen up, it's a big mean world out there.
I hope this has already been mentioned considering this is a forum up Apple fans but...
1 - It is not 'Mac OS X' it is 'OS X' now. They ditched 'Mac' a couple of years ago.
2 - X is roman numeral for 10 not the letter X. When 'Mac OS X' was first announced (before it became 'OS X'), Steve Jobs said this version would last for 20 years. We're about 12 years in (March 24th, 2001 was release date of 10.0).
Now, I'm not sure if Tim Cook will follow that but if they are truly sticking to Steve Job's plan we're going to have 8 more years of 'OS X' before we see 'OS XI' or 'OS 11' or whatever they decide to use.
1 - It is not 'Mac OS X' it is 'OS X' now. They ditched 'Mac' a couple of years ago.
2 - X is roman numeral for 10 not the letter X. When 'Mac OS X' was first announced (before it became 'OS X'), Steve Jobs said this version would last for 20 years. We're about 12 years in (March 24th, 2001 was release date of 10.0).
Now, I'm not sure if Tim Cook will follow that but if they are truly sticking to Steve Job's plan we're going to have 8 more years of 'OS X' before we see 'OS XI' or 'OS 11' or whatever they decide to use.
For Apple to go to a new major version number, there would have to be some major upheaval under the hood.
So far nothing's happened with the same magnitude as the OS9->OSX transition. iOS forked from it and contributed a lot of stuff back, but OSX still hasn't changed that much.
I'd really like Apple to rewrite AppKit with some of the more modern UIKit conventions. That would speed up Mac development about 1000x.
So far nothing's happened with the same magnitude as the OS9->OSX transition. iOS forked from it and contributed a lot of stuff back, but OSX still hasn't changed that much.
I'd really like Apple to rewrite AppKit with some of the more modern UIKit conventions. That would speed up Mac development about 1000x.
they are probably just going to drop the numbers and go straight "OS X Yolo."
Instead of "OS X 10.10 Yolo"
Craig boy said California location names set OS X name for the next decade, so yeah...no OS 11..prolly never?
Instead of "OS X 10.10 Yolo"
Craig boy said California location names set OS X name for the next decade, so yeah...no OS 11..prolly never?
Yes, and look how that worked out for Microsoft.
I don't think Apple will ever go down that path. They didn't even put OS X on the iPad. They know whats works.
I mean look at iOS 7 compared to Mavericks. The two have moved further apart.
----------
Yes, and look how that worked out for Microsoft.
I don't think Apple will ever go down that path. They didn't even put OS X on the iPad. They know whats works.
I mean look at iOS 7 compared to Mavericks. The two have moved further apart.
----------
Isn't that just a matter of changing the icons? Launchpad is typically an app on OS X that suggests the iPad / iPhone experience.
Although both iOS and OS X are based on same and are both developed for different hardware it could be (from Apple's perspective) something to achieve: one OS for all its hardware...
Microsoft couldn't make it happen as they have no control over all the various types of hardware. Apple does have control over its hardware.
Just a thought.
I agree with the others.
OS X is a brand name. Its like telling you "I am the Mac OS that you love, that works, that does not crash, you can count on me" .
While OS X is very stable and extremely good I think Apple should start working on the next generation. I opened a thread about this before, but some one mentioned that Apple said OS X will be here for at least another decade. Its a very good case of if its not broken don't fix it.
I think a brand name change should come with a brand new OS X. Hopefully when the time comes, Apple would be ready not giving us beta's and glitchy OS. There were some issues with OS X at launch as I recall, including non-supported software.
OS X is a brand name. Its like telling you "I am the Mac OS that you love, that works, that does not crash, you can count on me" .
While OS X is very stable and extremely good I think Apple should start working on the next generation. I opened a thread about this before, but some one mentioned that Apple said OS X will be here for at least another decade. Its a very good case of if its not broken don't fix it.
I think a brand name change should come with a brand new OS X. Hopefully when the time comes, Apple would be ready not giving us beta's and glitchy OS. There were some issues with OS X at launch as I recall, including non-supported software.