Roman numerals are definitely less common than the Arabic numbers we use today and so longer expressions like MCMXVIII (1918) do take more effort work out initially. I'll grant you that. But X? If you already know it means "ten", your brain shouldn't have to do any heavy lifting to translate it, or deem that extra effort as too much work and stop short by saying "ex". That doesn't make sense to me.
I think the problem stems from Windows XP being so ubiquitous, where the "X" is definitely pronounced "ex". People naturally carry that naming expression over to other operating systems. But in the case of Windows, "Windows" is the brand and XP, Vista, 7, NT, Millennium, etc. are the identifiers. It's better branding, IMO. Simpler. Mac OS X, with the "X" as a Roman numeral, just leads to confusion with guys like me saying, "it's a number," guys like you saying, "it doesn't matter how you pronounce it," and most everyone else not caring one way or the other.
Apple has to be different. Always has been. Using the Roman numeral "X" in the brand name just goes along with that, and made sense for a while, after Steve Jobs returned to Apple with NeXT and reworked Mac OS into a modern operating system by building it on top of UNIX. With that lineage, maybe it was, or even still is, more appropriate to say Mac OS "Ex" rather than Mac OS "Ten".
I seem to remember that part of the reason they initially went with a Roman numeral to represent the "ten" in the branding for the tenth major release of a Mac operating system was because there was already an OS 10 (or OS 11, I don't remember which) on another platform. Using the Roman numeral avoided a legal battle. But then the branding stuck, and so tomorrow we'll see Mac OS X 10.9 instead of just Mac OS 19.
Maybe by next year, after Mac OS X, iOS, and iCloud services become even more integrated, Apple will completely shed the X and version numbers in the branding like they're hopefully shedding the skeuomorphism from both UIs. I hope so anyway.
LOL! No, I didn't say, and am not saying, that "binary is the one true way of counting and what we humans have been doing for so many centuries is just 'shorthand'" LOL!!! I think that characteristic would go to the Binars. Any Star Trek: TNG fans in the house? 11001001
What I was trying to say (which you more ably described), is that binary is the language of computers, but for us humans to quickly, and more easily, communicate with that language we use decimal and hexadecimal as a type of shorthand. Perhaps I should have said "conversion" or "translation".
I think we're in agreement there, but, again, that's not related to the initial point I was making.
I think we just see things differently. If I'm confronted with the Roman numeral XLII, I recognize it as such and say 42 because I know it's meant as a numerical expression, not a series of letters to be spoken individually.
And radio connections? LOL! Oh, if only they had radio comms in the days of the Roman Empire. Roman batteries calling in fire missions: "Range to target: em cee cee cee ex el vee eye eye eye feet, baring ex ex eye vee mark ex cee oh the hell with it. They're over there!" Sounds like a Mel Brooks skit.
Using the phonetic pronunciation over radio comms ("one" "two" "tree" "four" "fife" etc.) in the military is one thing (and often necessary for clear communication through a static-laced connection), and not entirely analogous to, or even necessary when, talking to someone face to face, or over most telephone/wireless communications today. "F", "S", "3", "5", etc. tend to come through just fine.
And my original post wasn't about how to express or pronounce years or other long numbers when written with Roman numerals. I'm just talking about the very familiar Roman numeral "X" in Mac OS X, which, despite its lineage, has always been marketed as the number "10". Steve Jobs, Tim Cook, and all the other heads at Apple have always pronounced it as such because it's the name of their product. Pronouncing it differently, especially by people who know it's not an "ex" (especially Apple Store employees), is just incorrect.
