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.
Welcome back MacOS.....
- Thread starter deadpoetwalking
- Start date
-
- Tags
- macos
- Sort by reaction score
Love the wallpaper in MacOS Pacific... Nice name too.
Any chance you could share the full res wallpaper.
Any chance you could share the full res wallpaper.
[doublepost=1461160673][/doublepost]If tried!! Better for me to email it to you??
I feel like it should be either 'macOS' or 'Mac OS'. 'MacOS' just doesn't sit right with me.
I did, I went with a bit of nostalgia from the first launch of Mac OS which had the tagline - Welcome to Mac OS
Although it makes some sense to align the brand names a bit more, I still see a problem with the version numbers. What OS X, iOS, watchOS and tvOS all have in common is that they maintain an internal versioning, but Apple is not using it in the same way when they refer to the products, i.e. sometimes they include the version number as part of the brand and sometimes they do something different.
Brand – version – referred to as
OS X – v10.11.X – OS X El Capitan
iOS – v9.X – iOS 9, iOS 9.1 ...
watchOS – v2.X – watchOS 2, watchOS 2.1 ...
tvOS – v9.X – so far just tvOS
If they indeed change the brand OS X into macOS/MacOS/Mac OS, then there is still the California-related name and that 10. If they decide to keep the California-related name, then the consistency is already gone and people will still call OS X by that California-related name. If they keep the 10, then there will be an awkward ‘macOS 10.12’ (or ‘macOS 10.13’ next year). If they drop the 10, then they will pretty much ’skip’ the 11: macOS 12. If they keep increment the major version 10, then they could also go for macOS 11. If they start over, then the versioning becomes inconsistent or confusing.
All of this just does not seem ideal to me. I wonder whether they will have something else in mind entirely, e.g. something that encompasses iOS too.
Brand – version – referred to as
OS X – v10.11.X – OS X El Capitan
iOS – v9.X – iOS 9, iOS 9.1 ...
watchOS – v2.X – watchOS 2, watchOS 2.1 ...
tvOS – v9.X – so far just tvOS
If they indeed change the brand OS X into macOS/MacOS/Mac OS, then there is still the California-related name and that 10. If they decide to keep the California-related name, then the consistency is already gone and people will still call OS X by that California-related name. If they keep the 10, then there will be an awkward ‘macOS 10.12’ (or ‘macOS 10.13’ next year). If they drop the 10, then they will pretty much ’skip’ the 11: macOS 12. If they keep increment the major version 10, then they could also go for macOS 11. If they start over, then the versioning becomes inconsistent or confusing.
All of this just does not seem ideal to me. I wonder whether they will have something else in mind entirely, e.g. something that encompasses iOS too.
If they go with 'macOS' it will be when they reach OS 11?? And start afresh with 'macOS' like - macOS Monterey (macOS v1.0) just a thought!!
But this would be a pretty rough change with no technological benefit. I do not even want to think about all of the issues that this might cause, just because developers and like have relied upon the versioning scheme in their software. No, I think that the versioning scheme is something that Apple would want to keep, unless there is a good reason to force developers into making that switch.
All in all, I just do not see a good reason for changing the brand name, other than to achieve partial consistency with Apple’s newer OS brands.
They have started to use 'macOS' instead of 'OSX' in coding for developers for the next versions of OS with branding names included and new numbering system!!
Well, you could simply not include it in any way in the marketing and branding. Below the hood, developers could check the current OS version in the usual way.
They could just continue numbering 10.12, 10.13 et cetera, or simply start using an integer like Firefox and Chrome. These are up to version 50 or something.
It has been suggested that they could go for a rolling release, like Microsoft seems to be doing now. No more big-name branding towards consumers, just on-going updates. They have done this with iWork and iLife too, these have no identifier anymore. People will be notified of updates and just install them (or the system will offer automatic system updates, like iOS 9). They have started to blur everything with the public-beta programme anyway.
ohnastly if they did i wish they would just go back to Mac OS X unless they are going to completely change the numbering scheme
This is a number in the system usually found running a system command (or command in language that does the same thing), not really tied to whatever marketing has it as.
Example in windows if doing WMI filtering (we'll say I want a policy to affect windows 7 but not 8 or 10) my filter keys in on that number for windows 7. this number tbh unless you work with this stuff or google it would not clearly say its windows version X.
Linux same principle. A lot of stuff tends to look for kernel version number and could care less if its Ubuntu 12,14, or 15 (or the pet names they give them). they want latest kernels...something not happening if that Ubuntu 14 has not been updated in many moons. Or these kernel updates were declined.