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.
Report Claims 12.9-Inch iPad May Adopt Integrated iOS/OS X Operating System
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually, it's both. The X is a reference to Unix, but also acts as number 10, since it's the successor of Mac OS 9. That is also the reason it is pronounced "OS ten" instead of "OS ex".
Regardless, the only way to see a change to the name of this OS, would be if Apple made a full redesign. Something that would justify the "new operating system" claim. Unlike microsoft that jumped 2 major versions just because they've added a start menu.
When is the last time Digitimes was right on an Apple-related rumor? :/
On the other hand. Federighi and Schiller said combining iOS and OS X is not a focus, they didn't say they wouldn't do it. Ultimately iOS is just a buggy and ugly OS X port, but still the best phone software out there. Apple will ultimately (within 5 years I think) combine at least the core of the operating systems to better accelerate development of both operating systems.
On the other hand. Federighi and Schiller said combining iOS and OS X is not a focus, they didn't say they wouldn't do it. Ultimately iOS is just a buggy and ugly OS X port, but still the best phone software out there. Apple will ultimately (within 5 years I think) combine at least the core of the operating systems to better accelerate development of both operating systems.
I think people are maybe looking into this wrong.
Providing a single device that runs both OS X and iOS and when you're "portable" it's running iOS and when you're "docked" it runs OS X.
It'd keep the experience and inputs best on each, you wouldn't be using your iPad's touch screen while it's docked but you gain a full keyboard and mouse and external display potentially as well too.
iCloud Drive solves a lot of potential file system issues and most of Apple's apps would probably sync internally inside the device.
Providing a single device that runs both OS X and iOS and when you're "portable" it's running iOS and when you're "docked" it runs OS X.
It'd keep the experience and inputs best on each, you wouldn't be using your iPad's touch screen while it's docked but you gain a full keyboard and mouse and external display potentially as well too.
iCloud Drive solves a lot of potential file system issues and most of Apple's apps would probably sync internally inside the device.
We've seen how much an hybrid system worked on MS Surface Pro and how the whole world wanted it.
Remember those long lines before the Microsoft Stores on launch day? Yip, me neither!
OSX and iOS have always used the same source code, just another GUI layer.
If Apple wanted a hybrid, it would just need to create a third GUI or a switch between both existing GUIs.
But we haven't seen them come out with touch screens MBA/Ps (that's the other side of this equation), so I'm not seeing them come with "iOSX" iPads either.
Apple is all about the user experience and MS Surface has taught us that a hybrid OS hasn't got that needed user experience feeling.
Now a 12.9 iPad could be the catalyst to trigger more companies to create decent touch screen versions of their "pro" software.
Remember those long lines before the Microsoft Stores on launch day? Yip, me neither!
OSX and iOS have always used the same source code, just another GUI layer.
If Apple wanted a hybrid, it would just need to create a third GUI or a switch between both existing GUIs.
But we haven't seen them come out with touch screens MBA/Ps (that's the other side of this equation), so I'm not seeing them come with "iOSX" iPads either.
Apple is all about the user experience and MS Surface has taught us that a hybrid OS hasn't got that needed user experience feeling.
Now a 12.9 iPad could be the catalyst to trigger more companies to create decent touch screen versions of their "pro" software.
Actually, it's both. The X is a reference to Unix, but also acts as number 10, since it's the successor of Mac OS 9. That is also the reason it is pronounced "OS ten" instead of "OS ex".
Regardless, the only way to see a change to the name of this OS, would be if Apple made a full redesign. Something that would justify the "new operating system" claim. Unlike microsoft that jumped 2 major versions just because they've added a start menu.
Ha, yeah I knew somebody would call me out on that. I was just trying to make the point that it doesn't matter whether iOS is based on Unix. OS X will only change names if it shifts away from Unix.
Hehe, this forum is too predictable, I admit
Indeed, a turn away from unix (although I could not imagine what can they use instead, maybe a different unix flavor or something) would justify such turn. My guess is that a major change to core elements of the OS could also trigger a name change. Like - for example - the so much wanted turn from hfs+ to zfs. Or something even bigger than that.
Whilst I agree that this is an unlikely rumor, Apple also said that they wouldn’t make a video iPod, tablet or phone; that 7" tablets are terrible and that 10" is the “minimum required for great tablet apps”; and that 3.5" (and then 4") was the ideal size for a phone.
They’re prone to changing their minds.
Last edited:
Actually, it's both. The X is a reference to Unix, but also acts as number 10, since it's the successor of Mac OS 9. That is also the reason it is pronounced "OS ten" instead of "OS ex".
Regardless, the only way to see a change to the name of this OS, would be if Apple made a full redesign. Something that would justify the "new operating system" claim. Unlike microsoft that jumped 2 major versions just because they've added a start menu.
However, let's not forget Apple skipped Final Cut Pro 8/9 and went straight to X also.
Apples iPad problems are not about its lack of OSX. The iPad needs better parity between files and apps on the Mac and iPad. iWork is STILL is not fully featured between devices.
They already do have the same core.
For example, iWork on both platforms uses largely the same codebase:
'Products in the iWork suite share a number of components, largely as a result of sharing underlying code from the Cocoa and similar shared application programming interfaces (APIs).'
Source: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IWork
OS X is certified unix only since OS X 10.5 (before that it was just another unix like OS).
It's called OS X because X is ten and because that sounds cool.
And we've seen how much the world wanted a tablet before the ipad, or a smartphone before the iphone, ...
Apple has never made such schizophrenic devices, and has watched many others fail miserably while they take in billions, so why would they do it? How much storage space would that take? How long must the user wait for it to reboot each time? This is silly.
----------
Apple has no iPad problem. It sells way more than the Mac, but only ⅓ of the iPhone, which makes sense because everyone needs a phone, whereas not everyone needs a tablet. To think sales would be higher is delusional.
I would take what Apple says with a grain of salt, Intel was the running joke of every WWDC right up until Steve Jobs announced the switch.
I guess most or all of you skeptics missed Adobe Max yesterday. That's understandable, as most or all of you are already "upset" with Adobe for "gouging" you with their new subscription business model, Creative Could.
But one rather big event which happened in the last half of Adobe's keynote was that the Microsoft CEO came on stage, and Adobe demoed some new features of both its new mobile apps as well as its desktop apps, including Photoshop and Illustrator, that ran on Surface Pro 3: touch functionality.
Microsoft was so excited about this that every attendee was presented with a free Surface. (Interesting tacit admission of the real worth of that thing.)
This was clearly an end run around Apple, as Apple currently as no "2-in-1" device—or DO they?
This new iPad could be Apple's answer, I'm thinking. No matter that Microsoft was first. No matter that Adobe has presented new touch functionality for it. And why would Adobe make this kind of effort just for MS? No, I think Apple/Adobe have been working on just such a collaboration, too.
But, just as Apple is no stranger to "not necessarily first, but best", I think we're going to see some unique concepts with an Apple 2-in-1 device.
A lot of the stuff Adobe was showing on MS hardware was pretty interesting. And I can see creatives—the real professionals who easily make plenty of money and actually like CC—embracing what's most likely coming from Apple.
But one rather big event which happened in the last half of Adobe's keynote was that the Microsoft CEO came on stage, and Adobe demoed some new features of both its new mobile apps as well as its desktop apps, including Photoshop and Illustrator, that ran on Surface Pro 3: touch functionality.
Microsoft was so excited about this that every attendee was presented with a free Surface. (Interesting tacit admission of the real worth of that thing.)
This was clearly an end run around Apple, as Apple currently as no "2-in-1" device—or DO they?
This new iPad could be Apple's answer, I'm thinking. No matter that Microsoft was first. No matter that Adobe has presented new touch functionality for it. And why would Adobe make this kind of effort just for MS? No, I think Apple/Adobe have been working on just such a collaboration, too.
But, just as Apple is no stranger to "not necessarily first, but best", I think we're going to see some unique concepts with an Apple 2-in-1 device.
A lot of the stuff Adobe was showing on MS hardware was pretty interesting. And I can see creatives—the real professionals who easily make plenty of money and actually like CC—embracing what's most likely coming from Apple.
iPad pro related to mac mini
I think they waited so long with updating the mac mini because they plan to have it work with the iPad Pro: you have your mac mini at home, when you get home with your iPad Pro and are close it works as the screen for the mac mini and "runs" (displays actualy) OSX , when you leave and take your iPad Pro with you it runs iOS.
I think they waited so long with updating the mac mini because they plan to have it work with the iPad Pro: you have your mac mini at home, when you get home with your iPad Pro and are close it works as the screen for the mac mini and "runs" (displays actualy) OSX , when you leave and take your iPad Pro with you it runs iOS.
See now this would work, basically the iPad becomes a Macbook Air screen!. When docked its the full OS X as you have a keyboard and trackpad and full intel processor and storage on the base, undock it and it becomes iOS with all the iPad bits under the screen.
Unlike the MS 2 in 1 solution which just don't work.
Well we have reached OS 10.10... Maybe it's time for OS 11? Yeah.
Since it's a mix of iOS and OS X, it can be called OS XI = 11
Or iOS X
----------
Well,
It is not unheard off that Apple says that it will not do something and then do it later. I am looking at you iPhone 6 plus
Handoff and continuity are clearly designs for (Apple) Watch not integrated OS. I can see the finished Watch idea, that the Watch controls other devices and follows you around your office/home.
Now that they are going full native iCloud Drive the need for "real" file system access in iOS is also nicked. If anything, Apple pushes iOS tech that keeps developers fingers out from OSX internals... Because that really is the biggest source of OS failures on Macs.. Rogue apps that don't follow Apple's rules.
This I might buy. Full blown Mac air when you need a computer. And a large screen detachable from the base, when you want an iPad but each is running its appropriate OS.