Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Os 11

Masher500

Masher500

macrumors member
Original poster
Sep 12, 2006
68
0
Dana Point
At the end of this month Apple is going to give us a new OS. Whats after that? Does anyone know with any insight as to what the next gen of OS might be like? I dunno just thought it would be a good discussion..
 
10.5 will not be the last version of OS X unless there are no updates for about 13 years. since Steve Jobs has said that OS X will be the Mac OS for 20 years and it is just geting up to 7 years old.
 
Apple is pushing the Open Source Unix community hard for changes ... as things change so will the OS.

Apple is also on a lot of Hardware Design Group boards for new technology, so they are getting in their input there as well.

---

It is a much different way of doing business than the R&D expediture heavy Apple of old. And may seems like they are pulled in a lot of directions.

But we've had fewer flop technology introductions post OS X than before.
 
I am sure we will at least see through 10.8 before anything come around OS 11 wise, OS X is a strong OS, no reason to totally rewrite it yet. Maybe when we see trianary computers we will see OS 11.
 
On a strictly marketing viewpoint, the letter " X " is a very good thing. Looks clean, simple and classy. Also, it subtly refer to UNIX and if we look deep enough, it can refer to NeXT.

And "Mac OS eleven" just sound bad in comparison to "Mac OS X" (even Mac OS ten).

Also, knowing Steve Jobs and Apple quest for simplistic desing, I think the letter X is here to stay for a long time.
 
We could try going to just "System", maybe "System 2", "System 3" etc.
Or instead of "OS Ten" and "OS Eleven", go to "SX2" "SX3", etc.
Or maybe try a more 'corporate' name with "Apple System" 1, 2, etc.
Or just "StickinItToMicrosoft Version 1" or "Sitem 1" (As opposed to "System 1")

OK, I'm done.
 
Erasmus said:
We could try going to just "System", maybe "System 2", "System 3" etc.
Or instead of "OS Ten" and "OS Eleven", go to "SX2" "SX3", etc.
Or maybe try a more 'corporate' name with "Apple System" 1, 2, etc.
Or just "StickinItToMicrosoft Version 1" or "Sitem 1" (As opposed to "System 1")

OK, I'm done.
Click to expand...

system 7 anyone ??? (as in classic) lol i had to add that

so i wonder when Apple will drop PPC hardware altogether 10.6 or 10.7 maybe

whoo hoo my 500th post, now i can have a avatar
 
it will be 10.6 lion, then 10.7 cougar, then 10.8 lynx and then OS XI! but who knows if theyll got for the roman numeral naming again. could just be called Mac 11?
 
X happens to mean 10, yes, but it also happens to mean uniX. So as long as Apple keeps using UNIX as a base, they will call their operating system "OSX". That is, operating system based on unix.

If you want to think oldskool, think of Leopard as Mac OS 15 if you want to. Ten itself was a joke, it was close to unusable. Even eleven wasn't good enough, but since twelve (Jaguar) even Apple has been saying that Classic Mac OS is dead. So bury the classic version numbering too.

We're now waiting OSX version five (Leopard) to appear. Also a compatibility update 4.11 is on its way for Tiger. This is the new version numbering, folks, get used to it.

Apple is only carrying the ten on the version number because they needed to do so before Jaguar (to not upset the Classic Mac OS user base) and to remove the ten now would be a big surprise.

So... Wake up and drop the ten. Leopard is either "OSX version five" or "Macintosh OS version 15" whichever way you want to think about it.
 
Os X

Familiarity breeds easy market identification and consumer confidence. If there is some major advance in computing, it could spark the need for a new OS. Otherwise, I would expect that OS X in some iteration will be with us for quite some time longer. :apple:
 
JFreak said:
X happens to mean 10, yes, but it also happens to mean uniX.
Click to expand...
Only for those of us who pronounce unix as uni-ten.

But lets look at Apple's history.... did they ever release a product with an "x" in the name that actually meant something other than "10". Yes, they did.
A/UX, versions 1.0, 2.2 and 3.x.x In this case A/UX represented Apple's UNIX as A/UX was based on SVR2.2 (System V, with V meaning 5, Release 2.2).
MacX, versions 1.x and 2.0 In this case the X in MacX represents the X Windows environment for running UNIX apps.​
So by this, if the X in Mac OS X was supposed to stand for unix, then why didn't they follow the original convention and label it Mac OS UX? More to the point, until recently Mac OS X was a unix but not UNIX. The only unix like elements in Mac OS X were based on 4.4BSD Lite, so why not call it Mac OS BSD?

For those of us who have been following Mac OS X since long before the name Mac OS X existed know, when Mac OS X's first developer releases were sent out, the system didn't identify itself (using uname) as Darwin but rather Mac OS 10.0.

... Apple has been saying that Classic Mac OS is dead. So bury the classic version numbering too.
Click to expand...
The Classic version numbers were left behind, if they hadn't been we would have followed the scheme started for them with Mac OS 8...
  • Mac OS 8.0 (full cost upgrade)
  • Mac OS 8.5 (full cost upgrade)
  • Mac OS 9.0 (full cost upgrade)
  • Mac OS 10.0 (full cost upgrade, Mac OS X v10.0)
  • Mac OS 10.5 (full cost upgrade, Mac OS X v10.2)
  • Mac OS 11.0 (full cost upgrade, Mac OS X v10.3)
  • Mac OS 11.5 (full cost upgrade, Mac OS X v10.4)
  • Mac OS 12.0 (full cost upgrade, Mac OS X v10.5)
Are we waiting for Mac OS 12? I think not. And more to the point, Apple isn't about to start revising history just to make your version numbering fantasy work.

Besides all the other reasons for Apple's version numbers, the version numbers for Mac OS X have been normalized to match up with the Darwin version numbers (starting with Mac OS X v10.1.1) as follows:
Mac OS 10.0 (Mac OS X Developer Preview)
Mac OS 10.0 (Mac OS X Developer Preview 2)
Darwin 1.0 (Mac OS X Developer Preview 3)
Darwin 1.1 (Mac OS X Developer Preview 4)
Darwin 1.2.1 (Mac OS X Public Beta)
Darwin 1.3.1 (Mac OS X v.10.0.0-10.0.4)
Darwin 1.4.1 (Mac OS X v.10.1.0)
Darwin 5.1-5.5 (Mac OS X v.10.1.1-10.1.5)
Darwin 6.0-6.8 (Mac OS X v.10.2.0-10.2.8)
Darwin 7.0-7.9 (Mac OS X v.10.3.0-10.3.9)*
Darwin 8.0-8.10 (Mac OS X v.10.4.0-10.4.10)
Darwin 9.0 (Mac OS X v.10.5.0)​
And that was a break from the very long lasting version numbering from NeXT...
NeXTstep 0.8
NeXTstep 0.9 (not publicly released)
NeXTstep 1.0
NeXTSTEP 2.0
NeXTSTEP 2.1
NEXTSTEP 3.0
NEXTSTEP 3.1
NEXTSTEP 3.2
NEXTSTEP 3.3
OPENSTEP 4.0
OPENSTEP 4.1
OPENSTEP 4.2
Rhapsody 5.0 (Rhapsody Developer Release)
Rhapsody 5.1 (Rhapsody Developer Release 2)
Rhapsody 5.2 (Rhapsody Premier- never released)
Rhapsody 5.3 (Mac OS X Server 1.0)
Rhapsody 5.4 (Mac OS X Server 1.0.1)
Rhapsody 5.5 (Mac OS X Server 1.0.2)
Rhapsody 5.6 (Mac OS X Server 1.2)
Rhapsody 5.6 (also labeled as 5.6, Mac OS X Server 1.2 v3)​
And for those of you who don't know this already... NeXT was named long before they decided to include BSD in their operating system. In fact the first shipping product by NeXT was WriteNow, a word processor for Macs. So the X in NeXT has absolutely nothing to do with unix.

:rolleyes:

What is funny in all this is watching people attempt to rework this stuff so that their initial misconceptions were actually right. I don't understand the psychology behind it, but it is interesting to see people attempt to twist things to match up with what they originally said so that they weren't wrong.

To a degree I can under stand this, seeing as most of us who were very much aware of Mac OS X before the general public thought that Mac OS X v10.0 was going to be labeled Mac OS X v1.0 and that Mac OS X Server v10.0.3 was going to be Mac OS X Server v2.0... but when Apple decided on using something else for them I sure didn't try to make up some other way for my original beliefs to fit. :eek:

So for those who don't know already, Apple has stated (dating back to WWDC 98) that Mac OS X is pronounced "Mac OS 10", starting with 10.1.1 Apple linked the version number of Darwin and Mac OS X, and the "." is not a decimal in the version numbering system used in software.





* For some odd reason 10.3.1 displays Darwin 7.0 when it should have displayed 7.1​
 
OSX did not destroy the Classic numbering scheme. OS9 destroyed that. Remember OS 9, 9.1 and 9.2? And seeing as that WAS "Classic", that kinda crushes your argument, right?

Seems to me that SJ will name the next installment, and all subsequent installments of System whatever he wants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back