os 11

[Mord]

what the hell is longhorn?

 

[whocares]

Originally posted by Hector
what the hell is longhorn?

 

[whocares]

Oh, and it's also M$ 'up-and-coming' OS in 2006

 

[iChan]

I bet a Panther could kill a longhorn

 

[Counterfit]

Originally posted by SiliconAddict
BAH! Who cares if its .X or 11, 12, or pi.

OS 10.? now shipping! hmmm, maybe if they release 10.3.2 as 10.3.1.4....

 

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by iChan
I bet a Panther could kill a longhorn

Hahaha, maybe a very old and sick one.

One thing is for sure a Panther the animal and the system is surely sleeker, more stream lined, more nimble, and just has a lot less fat.

 

[ITR 81]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
It's been a 4 year journey from G4s first introing in PowerMacs to G4s in iBooks, BUT

Apple's got IBM producing chips now...my completely unscientific analysis puts Apple at an all G5 product line in 2 years, paving the way for a full 64-bit OS in late 2005.

But who knows...

I would think what would happen is in 05' Apple will launch the 64 bit OS and it will still release a upgrade for this 32 bit OS as well to keep everyone happy for next few yrs and allow them to all buy new G5 products.

 

[whooleytoo]

Originally posted by ahunter3
MacBanditSystem 6 only spanned the range from 6.0 to 6.0.8, never even making it to 6.1. System 7 slid up the scale a bit more rapidly, going from 7.0 to 7.0.1 to 7.1, debuted on the PowerPC with 7.2(?) shortly replaced with 7.5, which incremented it's way to 7.5.5 before the final 7, 7.6, deposed it. MacOS 8, which in many ways was just late System 7 with nicer GUI and a multitasking Finder, arrived with more fanfare than readiness, and its bug-fix release, which should have been 8.0.1, was released as 8.1, which in turn was replaced with 8.5, another buggy system whose insects were squashed with the nice and stable 8.6. Which should have been 8.5.1. Except that 8.5 should have been 8.2, there was no quantum leaping going on there, which would make 8.6 into 8.2.1. Except that 8.1 should have been 8.0.1, so 8.5 would have been 8.1, making 8.6 at this point logically named 8.1.1. Except that MacOS 8 should have been System 7.7....well, you get the idea.

Wow, you certainly put in the research!

Chances are, there's an abortive attempt at a next generation Apple OS for every gap in your version list above! Like the "original" MacOS 8 (Copland), Gershwin, Taligent Pink etc..etc..

 

[niter]

Somebody probably has said this before but could the X have to do with the fact that X is the Roman number for 10?

 

[benixau]

Come the end of the OSX moniker we could see something like the following:

MacOS T.0 MacOS T.1
MacOS E.0 MacOS E.1
MacOS SJRAKBGA.0 MacOS SJRAKBGA.1

the T and E come from neXt - the next letter in either direction and:
SJRAKBGA - Steve Jobs Rules And Kicks Bill Gates A$$

 

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by niter
Somebody probably has said this before but could the X have to do with the fact that X is the Roman number for 10?

The X IS the Roman numeral for 10. Thus Mac OSX is the same as Mac OS 10.

 

[Felix_the_Mac]

My explanation:

The operating system name is Mac OS X

The Version is 10.3.1

Therefore even when the time comes to increment the major version number it will still be Max OS X. eg Mac OS X 11.1

If you think about it, previously the OS name was Max OS and now it is Mac OS X.

I say the X represents the Unix core and it was a happy coincedence that X is also the Roman numeral for ten.

 

[MacsRgr8]

Originally posted by Felix_the_Mac

I say the X represents the Unix core and it was a happy coincedence that X is also the Roman numeral for ten.

I thought about it exactly the same way.

 

[dukemeiser]

Why can't they just go on to 10.10? or 10.11, 10.12, 10.13?

 

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by dukemeiser
Why can't they just go on to 10.10? or 10.11, 10.12, 10.13?

They can but by that time OS 10 will be old and it will be time for a new marketing campaign.

 

[JFreak]

oh yes, it's all about marketing. when they decide the X name is at the end of the road, they will name the os differently. but basically they may want to wait for something REALLY new and mind-blowing to justify the name change.

in the mean time this current versioning scheme is ok. we can easily have a 10.567.392 if they don't want to change the name. that only means it's a version 567.392 of their X operating system. that said, it makes more sence to think about os X as a completely new system of which version is 3.1 currently. that is easy to understand, isn't it?

 

[Felix_the_Mac]

Originally posted by JFreak
it makes more sence to think about os X as a completely new system of which version is 3.1 currently. that is easy to understand, isn't it?

Easy to understand yes.
However in labelling terms you have gone from OS X v10 to OS X v3.

You'll never covince the marketing guys to do that.

 

[whooleytoo]

Originally posted by Felix_the_Mac
Easy to understand yes.
However in labelling terms you have gone from OS X v10 to OS X v3.

You'll never covince the marketing guys to do that.

Maybe that's why they're using the cat names; so they can switch the numbering scheme easier.

 

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Felix_the_Mac
Easy to understand yes.
However in labelling terms you have gone from OS X v10 to OS X v3.

You'll never covince the marketing guys to do that.

He's not saying that they should switch the number scheme. He's saying that that IS what the version number means in reality. We are at version 3.1 of a brand new system. Thus 10.3.1. The system is 10 the version is 3.1. They already number it that way.

 

[Felix_the_Mac]

MacBandit:

Thats not what it says on my PB.

About this Mac:

Mac OS X
Version 10.3.1

 

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by Felix_the_Mac
MacBandit:

Thats not what it says on my PB.

About this Mac:

Mac OS X
Version 10.3.1

No I realize that. The system is called Mac OS X. The system number is 10 and the version number is 3.1. All we're saying is that is the way to look at it not that that is the way it is.