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

When will we see OS 11 ????

OS 11 is just a name. What do you mean by OS 11? The OS that follows OS X 10.9? OS 11 could be the next OS after 10.5. It could come after OS X 10.156.

I suppose you could see OS 11 as the "next transition" (System 1 through OS 9 where essentially the same thing and lasted 15 years). In which case it would be a big difference from OS X, ie no more UNIX. I wouldn't expect that any time soon.

Then again is could just be a marketing thing. In which case, anything goes - free for all. ;)

However, I think I remember from a Stevenote that OS X would be around for 10 years... So maybe 2010?
 
Those who seem to have figured out that "X" is branding then they are correct . Why are people so impatient for an OS 11, do we not get new features, functions, etc...with ever 10.X release. :confused:

I like the sound of Mac OS X (Tiger, etc...), rather than OS 10.whatever. ;) :)
 
MacDonaldsd said:
I agree there is no need to change to OS XI, but if they do it will be when we move to solely 64 Bit systems and intel only.
Click to expand...

68k to PPC transition was within System 7 (which was a mess in versions). AFAIK, system 7 was still around when all Macs where PPC.




(sorry for double post - I'm feeling lazy)
 
Heb1228 said:
I've never heard Steve Jobs say "OS 'EX'". He always pronounces the number 'ten'. And I've watched ALOT of keynotes, old and new. People just sound ignorant saying OS 'Ex.' Its a Roman numeral.
Click to expand...


I stand corrected. Jobs is still pronouncing it 'ten'. (Went and checked the last keynote.)
 
Here's a video and audio clip from MacWorld SF 2006 of Steve talking about OS X. In case anyone wants to hear how he says it...
 

Attachments

  • Ten.mp3.zip
    31.8 KB · Views: 106
  • Ten.m4v.zip
    150.6 KB · Views: 82
I have to say: that is one of by biggest pet peeves. I can't stand it when people say "OS ex" - it makes them sound like a Windows user. :eek:
 
The idea that OS X is long in the tooth is just plain silly. It wasn't until 10.2 that it was even a real, viable OS. That transition period was a very difficult one for all of us -- and frankly, it is only now that the laptop side has been able to catch up hardware-wise to the demands of the OS. (A 667Mhz TiBook would have smoked the 1.67Ghz PBs with respect to the "snappiness" of the UI -- which was always my biggest beef with OS X.)

OS X will stick around for a long time. You don't see Windows changing its under-the-hood structure all the time. Most new versions of Windows are evolutionary rather than revolutionary (although since, like Windows 2000, represented a huge leap forward in what an OS should be).

The basic OS structure will stick, and so should the moniker.
 
After OS 10.99 you're going to see a different naming scheme. I think they will come up with something cooler than OS XI
 
I believe the next major OS will be labelled: OS X³.
Steve has always had a thing for cubes, and OS X "square" doesn't cut it.


You heard it here first.
maybe
 
So back in the *Classic* days, was each OS release (ie OS 7, OS 8 etc) equatable to each 10.x release? I mean 1984 - 2001 = 17 years / 9 releases = 1 roughly every 2 years. So this pretty much shows that OS X has become "Mac OS" in terms of the branding of the OS, and its each .x release that indicates a new version of the OS.
 
Project said:
So back in the *Classic* days, was each OS release (ie OS 7, OS 8 etc) equatable to each 10.x release?
Click to expand...

In a sense, yes. No major technological revolution between System 1/Finder 1 and OS 9.2. Plus you paid for them (ie 9.1 was a free upgrade from 9.0, but 9 was not a free upgrade from 8.6).

But there where only 8 major releases of Classic. System 5 was skipped (I think it was when they were trying to reunite System and Finder version numbers).
 
I have zero experience of the classic Mac OS. How was it in comparison to say, Windows 95/98se etc? Did it have the same reputation as being easier to use/more polished etc? I always hear about old school Mac users complaining about certain things in OS X, like the dock, finder etc. What was that bar in the bottom of the Mac OS? Looked like a dock of sorts. And was the finder purely spatial? I love OSX. Just trying to imagine how using classic was.

/shudders at the thought of no column view
 
In my experience, most "classic" people that complain that about OS X, just can't get used to all the changes. They're unable to learn new tricks.

The Finder is virtually unchanged. It sucked as much in pre-OS X as it does now, though it might have responded a bit quicker. IMO the one BIGGEST noticable change for the non-geek in OS X versus pre-OS X...

BEING ABLE TO DO MULTIPLE TASKS SIMULTANEOUSLY

Kudos to OS X for making multi-tasking possible on your Mac.
 
If you're using Panther or later, you might consider yourself as already having OS XI.

Awhile ago, I kind of remember reading something, somewhere, that said Apple, at one point during the early development stages of Panther, estimated that it was going to be such a major release that it tossed around the idea of calling it OS XI (or maybe versioning it straight to 10.5, ala OS 8.5) to denote that it was a more significant release than say from 10.1 to 10.2.

Supposedly, Apple bailed on the idea after deciding that the "X" branding was more important to preserve for marketing, and would hype all of the improvements/features of Panther in a showcase fashion instead of relying on simple software numbering schemes.
 
VanNess said:
If you're using Panther or later, you might consider yourself as already having OS XI.

Awhile ago, I kind of remember reading something, somewhere, that said Apple, at one point during the early development stages of Panther, estimated that it was going to be such a major release that it tossed around the idea of calling it OS XI (or maybe versioning it straight to 10.5, ala OS 8.5) to denote that it was a more significant release than say from 10.1 to 10.2.

Supposedly, Apple bailed on the idea after deciding that the "X" branding was more important to preserve for marketing, and would hype all of the improvements/features of Panther in a showcase fashion instead of relying on simple software numbering schemes.
Click to expand...


From a Finder point of view, 10.3 was the first "non-beta" version of OS X.

Anything before 10.3 only had a half-arsed version of Finder.
 
I say "OS Ex." Oh well if anybody thinks I'm wrong. I know I'm wrong, but I don't care.

As for the OS, I say tear it down and rebuild it. I love OSX, but it still feels too much like what OSes have felt like for years and years and years. Apple should lead the charge in coming up with the OS of tomorrow, not a facelift for the OS of yesterday. Do I know what that path is? Not at all - if I did, I'd be working on it myself. With each revision of OS X, though, the standard OS style of doing things feels more and more dated.

Or, at least, maybe Apple can get their act together and get OS X consistent in look and feel.
 
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