I dunno, they could call it macOS 11 "Archimonde" and I would still use it and call it OS X by sheer habit.
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.
OS X in 2016... macOS?
- Thread starter ButteryScrollin
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just a fun theory, and I want to see what people think.
I don't think it's anything more than renaming the OS X part as MacOS. Everything else will be the same.
macOS X
iOS X
tvOS X
watchOS 3
And you have Windows 10.
Major operating systems like to stick to the number 10. I'm guessing this is where Apple might abandon numbering and just use names of places. Maybe.
iOS X
tvOS X
watchOS 3
And you have Windows 10.
Major operating systems like to stick to the number 10. I'm guessing this is where Apple might abandon numbering and just use names of places. Maybe.
I HOPE it will be called MacOS.
No numbering scheme.
For the normal consumer, make a version called MacOS.
Releasing minor updates (security, bug fix etc.) when needed, and Major Feature updates bi-annually.
For Professional/Power users, name it MacOS Pro.
Releasing minor updates (security, bug fix etc.) when needed, and Major Feature updates ONLY after they have been Rigorously tested for bugs and are deemed "very stable" by the general consensus of developers.
No numbering scheme.
For the normal consumer, make a version called MacOS.
Releasing minor updates (security, bug fix etc.) when needed, and Major Feature updates bi-annually.
For Professional/Power users, name it MacOS Pro.
Releasing minor updates (security, bug fix etc.) when needed, and Major Feature updates ONLY after they have been Rigorously tested for bugs and are deemed "very stable" by the general consensus of developers.
As Steve Jobs once said, "We've got a basic version, which is going to cost $129; we've got a premium version, which is going to cost $129; we have a business version, which is going to cost $129; we have an enterprise version, which is going to cost $129 and...we have the ultimate version, we're throwing everything into it, it's $129. We think most people will buy the ultimate version."
Seriously, there's no need to split OS X up.
Looks like you whiffed on that one... it's "macOS Sierra" and "macOS 10.12". Sorry... no partial credit.
I have always though of it as Mac OS X, though I think "EXS, knowing that its "ten". It was the neXt version after MacOS 9, build on a uniX base, so the "exs" has alway felt more right, even though it was wrong. I think Apple's take initially was that the inclusion of "Mac" in the name "Mac OS X" was redundant, as it was obviously for a Mac. It was that same silly brain thinking, why my MacBook Pro does not have my nice little Apple on my "Apple Key." The Apple key, is and alway will be the "Apple Key" in my mind.
My previous black MacBook was the last one to have the apple on the key, and my former co-worker had the first one with out it. He called me for help, and I told him "just press "Open Apple - P" and it should print. He though I was insane as he could not find an "open apple" and I thought he was insane because he could not find it. (Until I saw his MacBook and learned of the removal of this Iconic button.)
And yes, to me, it is actually the Open-Apple, as opposed to the Closed-Apple...The Apple IIc had both, which was my first experience with Apple Computers. My use was very limited to stuff at school and the library with that machine. Starting with the Apple IIGS, and it's ADB keyboard (shared with the MacSE) the Closed-Apple was no longer present. I learned it as being the "open-apple," so even though the closed-apple has been gone for MUCH longer than the closed-apple existed (25+ years gone.)
Blah, in the end, does it really matter with all this MacOS/OSX, EXS/TEN, etc? What REALLY matters, at least to me is that it is NOT Windows.