Os 11

Discussion in 'macOS' started by Masher500, Oct 9, 2007.

  1. Masher500 macrumors member


    Sep 12, 2006
    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..
  2. FJ218700 macrumors 68000


    Mar 8, 2007
    Blue Dot, Red State
    10.5 is the last OS X. After that, OS Z (ZFS default)
  3. dukebound85 macrumors P6


    Jul 17, 2005
    5045 feet above sea level
    ugh 10.5 isnt even out yet and we don't eben know all that it contains
  4. 0007776 Suspended


    Jul 11, 2006
    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.
  5. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    May 19, 2002
    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.
  6. synth3tik macrumors 68040


    Oct 11, 2006
    Minneapolis, MN
    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.
  7. wakerider017 macrumors 68000


    Sep 20, 2006
    US of A
    X stands for 10... It is a Roman Numeral...

    If anything the next OS would be IV or just 11....
  8. AppleWoW macrumors regular


    Sep 22, 2007
    SLC, Utah
    Too soon for this post. 10.5 hasnt even been released yet.
  9. FJ218700 macrumors 68000


    Mar 8, 2007
    Blue Dot, Red State
    X could stand for uniX,

    anyway, it was a joke
  10. sunfast macrumors 68020


    Oct 14, 2005
    OS 4? Aren't we going back a bit? :p
  11. Scarlet Fever macrumors 68040

    Scarlet Fever

    Jul 22, 2005
    Apple apparently have registered names for 10.6 and 10.7, so OS X will be with us for some time yet.

    Mac OS IV "Sabretooth Tiger". Long extinct, but still awesomely powerful :D
  12. bartelby macrumors Core


    Jun 16, 2004
    Mac OS IV "The Search For Woz"
  13. epicwelshman macrumors 6502a


    Apr 6, 2006
    Nassau, Bahamas
    haha, love it.

    I do enjoy when people mix their roman numerals up.

    FWIW, 11 = XI
  14. twoodcc macrumors P6


    Feb 3, 2005
    Right side of wrong
    and what are those names?
  15. Scarlet Fever macrumors 68040

    Scarlet Fever

    Jul 22, 2005
    cougar and lynx, according to an article in my local tech paper (who probably get their info from Appleinsider)
  16. bloodycape macrumors 65816

    Jun 18, 2005
    No Lion, Lynx or a hybrid OS Liger?
  17. Scarlet Fever macrumors 68040

    Scarlet Fever

    Jul 22, 2005
    well according to the article I read, Lynx will be either 10.6 or 10.7

    I think Liger will be the AMD build of Mac OS X ;)
  18. /V\acpower macrumors 6502a

    Jul 31, 2007
    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.
  19. Erasmus macrumors 68030


    Jun 22, 2006
    Hiding from Omnius in Australia
    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.
  20. madmax_2069 macrumors 6502a


    Aug 17, 2005
    Springfield Ohio
    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
  21. richard.mac macrumors 603


    Feb 2, 2007
    51.50024, -0.12662
    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?
  22. JFreak macrumors 68040


    Jul 11, 2003
    Tampere, Finland
    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.
  23. gaslightime macrumors newbie

    Oct 15, 2007
    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:
  24. RacerX macrumors 65832

    Aug 2, 2004
    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.

    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.


    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
  25. Erasmus macrumors 68030


    Jun 22, 2006
    Hiding from Omnius in Australia
    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.

Share This Page