Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

Welcome back MacOS.....

What do you think??

  • Awesome

    Votes: 17 39.5%
  • Sweet

    Votes: 5 11.6%
  • I like

    Votes: 6 14.0%
  • OK

    Votes: 10 23.3%
  • Meeeh

    Votes: 2 4.7%
  • Me no like

    Votes: 2 4.7%
  • Crap

    Votes: 1 2.3%

  • Total voters
    43

deadpoetwalking

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Apr 20, 2016
9
2
Cymru / Wales
Here is a mockup of MacOS....
macOS | Welcome back - b.jpg


macOS | Monterey 3.jpg


macOS | Pacific 3.jpg


macOS | Welcome back - sg.jpg



macOS | Welcome back - rg.jpg


macOS | Welcome back - g.jpg



macOS | Welcome back - silver.jpg



macOS | Welcome back - w.jpg
 
Last edited:

KALLT

macrumors 603
Sep 23, 2008
5,160
3,209
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.
 
Comment

deadpoetwalking

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Apr 20, 2016
9
2
Cymru / Wales
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!!
 
Comment

KALLT

macrumors 603
Sep 23, 2008
5,160
3,209
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.
 
Comment

deadpoetwalking

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Apr 20, 2016
9
2
Cymru / Wales
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!!
 
Comment

cerberusss

macrumors 6502a
Aug 25, 2013
919
357
The Netherlands
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.

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.
 
Comment

KALLT

macrumors 603
Sep 23, 2008
5,160
3,209
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.

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.
 
Comment

hiddenmarkov

macrumors 6502a
Mar 12, 2014
685
458
Japan
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.


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.
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.