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

The Next OS X will not be OS X.

Sky Blue said:
There's nothing pointing to that fact. There's many things pointing to the next version of OS X will be 10.10.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess I was very unclear; I meant pointing to the fact that there will be a redesign - not the name. You're right. Still, I wouldn't be surprised if they chose OS XI
 
Sound214 said:
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_0 1000
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_1 1010
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_2 1020
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_3 1030
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_4 1040
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_5 1050
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_6 1060
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_7 1070
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_8 1080
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_9 1090
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_????? ????

I could really see them calling the next ten versions OS XI, since it's definitely going to differ pretty much.
Click to expand...
There is nothing in Apple's OS naming history that suggests that the next release could not be 10.9.11, or that the next major release must be called OS 11 or OS XI. Note that version 5 was skipped, and note that the last release of Tiger was 10.4.11.

System 1.0 - 4.3 Classic Mac OS
System 1.0
System 1.1

System 2.0

System 3.0
System 3.1
System 3.2
System 3.3

System 4.0
System 4.1
System 4.2
System 4.3

System 6
System 6.0
System 6.0.1 -- release disputed
System 6.0.2
System 6.0.3
System 6.0.4
System 6.0.5
System 6.0.7
System 6.0.8
System 6.0.8L -- never officially released from Apple

System 7 "System" designation
System 7.0
System 7.0.1
System 7.1
System 7.1.1 (System 7 Pro)
System 7.1.2
System 7.1.2P
System 7.1.3
System 7.5

System 7.0P1 Performa Systems
System 7.1P1
System 7.1P2
System 7.1P3
System 7.1P4
System 7.1P5
System 7.1P6
System 7.5

Mac OS 7.5.1 "Mac OS" designation
Mac OS 7.5.2
Mac OS 7.5.3
Mac OS 7.5.3 Revision 2
Mac OS 7.5.3 Revision 2.1
Mac OS 7.5.3 Revision 2.2
Mac OS 7.5.4 -- never offically released from Apple
Mac OS 7.5.5
Mac OS 7.6 "Harmony"
Mac OS 7.6.1

Mac OS 8
Mac OS 8
Mac OS 8.1
Mac OS 8.5
Mac OS 8.5.1
Mac OS 8.6

Mac OS 9
Mac OS 9
Mac OS 9.0.2
Mac OS 9.0.3
Mac OS 9.0.4
Mac OS 9.1
Mac OS 9.2
Mac OS 9.2.1
Mac OS 9.2.2

Mac OS X
Mac OS X Public Beta (Kodiak)

Mac OS X 10.0 "Cheetah"
Mac OS X 10.0.0
Mac OS X 10.0.1
Mac OS X 10.0.2
Mac OS X 10.0.3
Mac OS X 10.0.4

Mac OS X 10.1 "Puma"
Mac OS X 10.1
Mac OS X 10.1.1
Mac OS X 10.1.2
Mac OS X 10.1.3
Mac OS X 10.1.4
Mac OS X 10.1.5

Mac OS X 10.2 "Jaguar"
Mac OS X 10.2
Mac OS X 10.2.1
Mac OS X 10.2.2
Mac OS X 10.2.3
Mac OS X 10.2.4
Mac OS X 10.2.5
Mac OS X 10.2.6
Mac OS X 10.2.7
Mac OS X 10.2.8

Mac OS X 10.3 "Panther"
Mac OS X 10.3.0
Mac OS X 10.3.1
Mac OS X 10.3.2
Mac OS X 10.3.3
Mac OS X 10.3.4
Mac OS X 10.3.5
Mac OS X 10.3.6
Mac OS X 10.3.7
Mac OS X 10.3.8
Mac OS X 10.3.9

Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger"
Mac OS X 10.4.0
Mac OS X 10.4.1
Mac OS X 10.4.2
Mac OS X 10.4.3
Mac OS X 10.4.4
Mac OS X 10.4.5
Mac OS X 10.4.6
Mac OS X 10.4.7
Mac OS X 10.4.8
Mac OS X 10.4.9
Mac OS X 10.4.10
Mac OS X 10.4.11

Mac OS X 10.5 "Leopard"
Mac OS X 10.5.0
Mac OS X 10.5.1
Mac OS X 10.5.2
Mac OS X 10.5.3
Mac OS X 10.5.4
Mac OS X 10.5.5
Mac OS X 10.5.6
Mac OS X 10.5.7
Mac OS X 10.5.8

Mac OS X 10.6 "Snow Leopard"
Mac OS X 10.6.0
Mac OS X 10.6.1
Mac OS X 10.6.2
Mac OS X 10.6.3
Mac OS X 10.6.4
Mac OS X 10.6.5
Mac OS X 10.6.6
Mac OS X 10.6.7
Mac OS X 10.6.8

Mac OS X 10.7 "Lion"
Mac OS X 10.7.0
Mac OS X 10.7.1
Mac OS X 10.7.2
Mac OS X 10.7.3
Mac OS X 10.7.4
Mac OS X 10.7.5

Mac OS X 10.8 "Mountain Lion"
Mac OS X 10.8.0
Mac OS X 10.8.1
Mac OS X 10.8.2
Mac OS X 10.8.3
Mac OS X 10.8.4
Mac OS X 10.8.5

Mac OS X 10.9 "Mavericks"
Mac OS X 10.9.0
Mac OS X 10.9.1
Mac OS X 10.9.2
 
GGJstudios said:
There is nothing in Apple's OS naming history that suggests that the next release could not be 10.9.11, or that the next major release must be called OS 11 or OS XI. Note that version 5 was skipped, and note that the last release of Tiger was 10.4.11.

System 1.0 - 4.3 Classic Mac OS
...
Click to expand...

My point was just that they've named every version since Cheetah; 1000, 1010, 1020, 1030, and so on. Now, what are they gonna call the next version, after 1090? 10100? 1100? Or maybe that doesn't matter at all. I know nothing, really, just trying to shed some more light.

EDIT: Or perhaps it's 101000 https://trac.webkit.org/changeset/161739
 
Last edited:
Sound214 said:
My point was just that they've named every version since Cheetah; 1000, 1010, 1020, 1030, and so on. Now, what are they gonna call the next version, after 1090? 10100? 1100?
Click to expand...
They were not 1000, 1020, 1030, etc. They were 10.0 "Cheetah", 10.4 "Tiger", 10.6 "Snow Leopard", etc. If Apple follows similar naming conventions, 10.10 and XI are the most likely possibilities. All of this is pretty meaningless, as the name that Apple chooses is a very minor issue, and no one in this forum knows for certain. They are only guesses.
 
GGJstudios said:
They were not 1000, 1020, 1030, etc. They were 10.0 "Cheetah", 10.4 "Tiger", 10.6 "Snow Leopard", etc. If Apple follows similar naming conventions, 10.10 and XI are the most likely possibilities. All of this is pretty meaningless, as the name that Apple chooses is a very minor issue, and no one in this forum knows for certain. They are only guesses.
Click to expand...

Publicly, yes, but not when using code to identify the version. See this or this for example.
 
damidget said:
Can't people just be patient and instead of trying to persuade people to believe that the next release is going to be OS 11...
:confused:
Click to expand...

If you're referring to me, I'm absolutely not trying to persuade people to belive that it'll be called OS 11 (or OS XI). I was just trying to keep an open mind, but now after finding this, I lean more towards 10.10. Well, I guess you oppose me persuading you to believe it'll be called 10.10 now...

----------
mojolicious said:
Is there no scope for additional characters in the string and hence the use of '#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_10 10100'?
Click to expand...

I don't think so, but I don't know.
 
mojolicious said:
Is there no scope for additional characters in the string and hence the use of '#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_10 10100'?
Click to expand...

I believe there is plenty of scope...
#define is pre-processor find and replace. The Human Readable Token (MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_10) is literally replaced with the compiler integer build number '10100' if there is any sorting going on it will be by the build number not the token.

The numbers in the token are meaningless to the computer. The it could be #define MAC_OS_X_CODENAME 10100 for all the machine cares and make no deference to the operation.
 
Sound214 said:
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_0 1000
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_1 1010
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_2 1020
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_3 1030
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_4 1040
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_5 1050
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_6 1060
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_7 1070
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_8 1080
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_9 1090
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_????? ????

I could really see them calling the next ten versions OS XI, since it's definitely going to differ pretty much.
Click to expand...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNIElTegQ50&safe=active

They wanted a name that they could use for OS X ... for at least the next ten years. That's from Craig.
 
Sound214 said:
If you're referring to me, I'm absolutely not trying to persuade people to belive that it'll be called OS 11 (or OS XI). I was just trying to keep an open mind, but now after finding this, I lean more towards 10.10. Well, I guess you oppose me persuading you to believe it'll be called 10.10 now...

----------



I don't think so, but I don't know.
Click to expand...

I'm not referring to you but everyone in particular
 
Mac OS OS XI

SolarShane said:
It'll be OS 11. Why?
Thus, meaning that Apple will most likely omit 10.10, as it ends in a zero, and because Apple has already released a 10.1 (remember 10.10 would be "10.1" according to Apple's naming convention) the next logical step is to move onto OS 11. I think that Mavericks was supposed to be OS 11, but because iOS 7 needed more attention, they decided to delay the redesign, but kept with the name change.

Don't tell me about how the logs say Apple is testing 10.10. Apple can easily fake version numbers to hide version they're actually testing. After all, Apple wouldn't want traffic tracking software to reveal OS 11 before it's reveal.
Click to expand...

On the one hand, I agree with you that calling the version "10.10" seems dumb from a mathematical standpoint. Clearly, the mathematical value of 10.10 is identical to the mathematical value of 10.1. In Objective C one can write:

UILabel *youAreCorrectLabel = [[UILabel init] alloc];
if(10.10 == 10.1) youAreCorrectLabel.text = @"Programmers don't care about the strict mathematical value of version numbers.";

On the other hand, however, while youAreCorrectLabel.text, they also don't view the decimal point as a decimal point per se.

I still think it should be called OS XI, because I do care about math, and I think Apple should rise above conventional developer-think and take a stand on the side of math, science, and reason.
 
darkgoob said:
On the one hand, I agree with you that calling the version "10.10" seems dumb from a mathematical standpoint. Clearly, the mathematical value of 10.10 is identical to the mathematical value of 10.1. In Objective C one can write:

UILabel *youAreCorrectLabel = [[UILabel init] alloc];
if(10.10 == 10.1) youAreCorrectLabel.text = @"Programmers don't care about the strict mathematical value of version numbers.";

On the other hand, however, while youAreCorrectLabel.text, they also don't view the decimal point as a decimal point per se.

I still think it should be called OS XI, because I do care about math, and I think Apple should rise above conventional developer-think and take a stand on the side of math, science, and reason.
Click to expand...

Your code is implicitly using base ten. Where by "ten" I mean 10 cubed plus 10, evaluated in binary.

And version numbers aren't decimal numbers. Seriously. What the hell does 10.9.2 (the current version of OS X) mean as a decimal number? Is it two-tenths of 10.9? Is it 10 plus 9 tenths plus 2 tenths of that? Both of those are nonsense, because there's already a mathematical notation for fractional parts taken in a given base.
 
For all the people in these forums who still don't understand software numbering conventions (and refuse to listen to people who do), Apple can display the first version number as:

10.10.0

There, problem solved. :rolleyes:
 
chown33 said:
Your code is implicitly using base ten. Where by "ten" I mean 10 cubed plus 10, evaluated in binary.

And version numbers aren't decimal numbers. Seriously. What the hell does 10.9.2 (the current version of OS X) mean as a decimal number? Is it two-tenths of 10.9? Is it 10 plus 9 tenths plus 2 tenths of that? Both of those are nonsense, because there's already a mathematical notation for fractional parts taken in a given base.
Click to expand...

youAreCorrectLabel.text
 
maths aside, it's the marketing dept that will decide :)

I think we would have known if a new os 11 would arrive, especially under Tim. Remember os x was released as a product a year after it's announcement.
 
Sound214 said:
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_0 1000
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_1 1010
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_2 1020
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_3 1030
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_4 1040
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_5 1050
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_6 1060
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_7 1070
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_8 1080
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_9 1090
#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_????? ????

I could really see them calling the next ten versions OS XI, since it's definitely going to differ pretty much.
Click to expand...

Solution to this is simple.

#define MAC_OS_X_VERSION_10_10 10100
Click to expand...

Also, back during Mac OS X's introduction, Steve said it would last them for at least 20 years, and during Mavericks, Craig said that it the California name would be used for Mac OS X for the next 10 years...

Sorry, 10.10 is next guys.
 
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