When might OS XI be considered?

[Spanky Deluxe]

I don't know the history of how long the major revisions are apart from one another in MacOS' history. The impression I get is that OS X has been around significantly longer than OS 9 or OS 8 lasted although I could very well be wrong.
I'm guessing that a new major revision is a while off especially since OS X has become a brand in its own right, i.e. "OS X" is comparable to "Windows" rather than "OS X" being comparable to "Windows 2000". "OS X" seems to have taken the place of "MacOS" even though it is supposedly the tenth major revision of that OS.

Any ideas of a potential name, timeframe, functions of the next major revision of the MacOS might have?

 

[WildCowboy]

This question pops up every day or so. Steve said in the past that OS X is good for 15-20 years. So, in theory, we may not see OS XI until 2020. But I'd imagine at some point they'll change the naming scheme (possibly to OS XI) at some convenient point when there are significant upgrades, but still based on OS X.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

Fair enough. I guess I should have done a search, I just hadn't seen any topics on it, mind you I don't often come into this particular room. Also I'm pretty sure the search functions on these forums don't allow you to search for really short search terms such as "OS XI".
I think the days of complete rewrites such as the OS 9 -> OS X or the Windows 3.11 -> Windows NT are a thing of the past. Operating systems are getting so incredibly complex, it'd just be too hard to start again. I'm sure the OS X -> OS XI transition, should it ever happen, will be a blurry one.

 

[wmmk]

Mac OS X is like classic Mac OS. each cat is like 1,2,3,4,5,6,7.8.9, etc. 10.4.x is like 9.x and a complete rewrite is propbably going to happen at some point. Mac OS X is just Darwin and Aqua. Atr some point, apple will go to a new kernel, which will still probably be POSIX, and the UI is going to change. if apple never makes dramatic changes in the UI in the next 10-15 years, (when the thing after OS X ccomes out) the're cooked.

 

[Monkaaay]

I kind of agree with Spanky. I really think incremental change is the only way to release operating systems with any regularity. Mac OS X would be the shining case in point and Windows would be the other end of the argument. Apple was smart in how they redid everything for OS X and used proven technology to build upon. OS XI might be a "re-write" but still more of a mesh of quality, proven technologies than fully in house projects. It just doesn't make sense anymore, as they've shown with OS X.

 

[RacerX]

I think the days of complete rewrites such as the OS 9 -> OS X or the Windows 3.11 -> Windows NT are a thing of the past.

Well, actually neither of those were complete rewrites. Both Windows NT and Mac OS X are based on operating systems that were neither Windows or the Mac OS. The Windows NT line is based on OS/2 and the Mac OS X line is based on NEXTSTEP. And both OS/2 and NEXTSTEP started life in the late 1980s (not long after the beginnings of both the Windows and the Mac OS).

Both Windows Me and Mac OS 9 were the ends of those respective operating system lines.

This graphic I threw together may help in seeing that...

 

[Marx55]

This graphic I threw together may help in seeing that...

[/QUOTE]

Nice picture. Could you please tell us the source for reference? Thanks.

 

[bousozoku]

I'd expect when there is a huge shift in the way things are handled visually, they'll change the name. Unfortunately, no one has created a device that can easily handle 3D movement so it's going to be some time from now. While a lot of the 3D environments are cute, clever, and colourful, none are incredibly useful or different.