Heck even Mac OS 8 ran on 68k systems, I was running 8.1 on a Performa 636CD which had a Motorola MC68040 according to Apple-History.whocares said:
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.
When will we see OS 11 ????
- Thread starter MRU
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Jan 2007, OS X 11 = Codename "supercalafragalisticespialidosious"
They're gonna need a BIG box to get the name on the label...
They're gonna need a BIG box to get the name on the label...
cgratti said:
Geez...can't anyone on these forums spell?!?! It's supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.
We will see it when Apple, or anyone, comes up with an idea that worths changing the first digit of the System's version.
Let me explain myself.
OS X could not be named "OS 10" because it was not just an upgrade from 9. It was established in a whole different codebase, and its logic has changed. OS X was established upon an open-source Unix environment called FreeBSD. OS 9 was not.
Now, if Apple decides that they will upgrade their system to be entirely different than OS X, they will make the jump to OS 11.
But I think that day wil be long. They still haven't taken advantage of OS X's capabilities. I mean... OS 9 was as fast and good as it could be. No other thing was left to be done for OS 9. That's why we got OS X.
But for OS X, many things are left to be done. So... be patient, and you may live enough to see OS 11.
Let me explain myself.
OS X could not be named "OS 10" because it was not just an upgrade from 9. It was established in a whole different codebase, and its logic has changed. OS X was established upon an open-source Unix environment called FreeBSD. OS 9 was not.
Now, if Apple decides that they will upgrade their system to be entirely different than OS X, they will make the jump to OS 11.
But I think that day wil be long. They still haven't taken advantage of OS X's capabilities. I mean... OS 9 was as fast and good as it could be. No other thing was left to be done for OS 9. That's why we got OS X.
But for OS X, many things are left to be done. So... be patient, and you may live enough to see OS 11.
Soulstorm said:
More to the point it's a play on both the fact that X is the roman numeral for 10 and X is a letter in UNIX. While it is called "Oh Ess Ten", it's always written OS X.
We might see it on the anniversary but I think it more likely at the next large event after that (a teaser anyway). Other than improving Finder I most want them to add a few more UNIX based tricks. Don't get me started on the naming, I have no idea.
One of my pet peeves is people who call it "Oh Ess Ecks." ARGH! That's NOT what it's CALLED! Say it RIGHT, you miserable bastards.
However, I'd say it's quite conceivable that we could have OS X around for quite a while, given the power of its brand and the fact that version numbers aren't like decimal numbers (10.9 does not necessarily lead to 11, it could easily be 10.10, which is not the same as 10.1). Basically, they'll keep OS X as long as it's a valuable brand/marketing tool.
However, I'd say it's quite conceivable that we could have OS X around for quite a while, given the power of its brand and the fact that version numbers aren't like decimal numbers (10.9 does not necessarily lead to 11, it could easily be 10.10, which is not the same as 10.1). Basically, they'll keep OS X as long as it's a valuable brand/marketing tool.
Touch
The move to OS XI should be huge... Something like this would kick butt http://mrl.nyu.edu/~jhan/ftirtouch/index.html
There are rumors and patents flying around that something like this could happen.
The move to OS XI should be huge... Something like this would kick butt http://mrl.nyu.edu/~jhan/ftirtouch/index.html
There are rumors and patents flying around that something like this could happen.
Why are people always looking for something greater and better? as far as I'm concerned OS X still very current, there are a few things I would change but not enough to call it OS XI.
DougTheImpaler said:
Crap. I was reading through this whole thread hoping no one would beat me to the punch.
Yes, whenever Apple transitions to OS XI, Christopher Guest should be expecting a call.
WildCowboy said:Geez...can't anyone on these forums spell?!?! It's supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.
Oh great. The first virus for that would have to be called pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis, just for fun
I think Apple is perverse enough to change the name of the OS entirely.
How do you top OS X? You really can't But figure that OS X lasts us until 10.9 -- at 24 months between each release (SJ said dev cycle is slowing), we have, what? Fall of 2014 before we run out of X?
By then, computing will be completely different. We'll have as many cores in our processors as we currently have transistors We might finally escape hard drives
Apple's new OS to take advantage of whatever strange devices are out then might be nominally called "OS X" in order to preserve the illusion of smooth continuity, the "It's okay -- it's still an Apple®" feel... but under the hood, it'll be completely different.
Apple's made some changes to its particular brand of UNIX. I think they're quire good (launchd, et cetera) for the most part. I'd like to see them continue to revamp the "BSD" subsystem as much as they can, watch it evolve and gain in performance, ease of use, and robustness, until it's barely a UNIX anymore. Don't get me wrong, I love my X11 and compiling the apps I used on GNU/Linux and FreeBSD to run seamlessly in OS X... but there's no reason why good, platform-independent C should only be compilable on a traditional UNIX.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to it, whatever it's called and however it's built
How do you top OS X? You really can't
But figure that OS X lasts us until 10.9 -- at 24 months between each release (SJ said dev cycle is slowing), we have, what? Fall of 2014 before we run out of X?By then, computing will be completely different. We'll have as many cores in our processors as we currently have transistors
We might finally escape hard drives Apple's new OS to take advantage of whatever strange devices are out then might be nominally called "OS X" in order to preserve the illusion of smooth continuity, the "It's okay -- it's still an Apple®" feel... but under the hood, it'll be completely different.
Apple's made some changes to its particular brand of UNIX. I think they're quire good (launchd, et cetera) for the most part. I'd like to see them continue to revamp the "BSD" subsystem as much as they can, watch it evolve and gain in performance, ease of use, and robustness, until it's barely a UNIX anymore. Don't get me wrong, I love my X11 and compiling the apps I used on GNU/Linux and FreeBSD to run seamlessly in OS X... but there's no reason why good, platform-independent C should only be compilable on a traditional UNIX.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to it, whatever it's called and however it's built
yellow said:
This is BS. While lots of improvements in OS X are welcome, there have been a lot of areas where OS 9 and before shined. It was certainly easier to use -- I am by no means a super-sophisticated user, but I knew what every single system file did and where it was located. That's impossible pretty much with OS X.
The biggest thing that OS 9 had going for it was GUI responsiveness. You've seen this referred to something as "Snappy" in forums like this. It is *ONLY* with the latest hardware, combined with the speed advances in OS 10.3 and beyond, that we've come even *close* to the GUI responsiveness that we had in the OS 9 and before days.
Aside from that, there are lots of quibbles people can make (a personal pet peeve of mine is the dislike of system-wide antialiased fonts and the inability to turn them off globally, especially with the low-res LCDs Apple uses in all its products), but it is unfair to state that OS 9 users just can't learn OS X's tricks.
Project said:
No. OS X's GUI -- at least with respect to what you see in the Finder -- has remained quite stable over time. By contrast, every GUI from System 6 through System 9 looked VERY different from its predecessors. You have to remember that System 6 was designed for monochrome screens, essentially. System 7 was the first one I remember seeing splashed with color (Mac LC, how I miss thee). System 8 was around when color was real, so you had real icons (instead of the single-colored folder icons of OS 7), etc. etc. And OS 9 brought it all to consummation and looked the most refined of the OSes. As a side note, however, I and many other users considered System 8.6 to be the pinnacle of OS design: it was very fast with good functionality, and not a lot of bloatware that was thrown into OS 9 and slowed it down.
Wow I started the thread tongue & cheek, amazed some people got so serious. Some very funny posts though
I can't even imagine an OS XI. Right now, OS X is so.... brilliant. I couldn't ask for more, really.
It's "OS TEN" for the like...100th time.mark88 said:
I agree completely. "OS X" is the brand of the operating system. Then Apple give the version a really funky name, such as Tiger. It's a world-class strategy, makes far more sense than Windows releases ever have, and will last until any major change in computing comes about. To me at least, it feels like Apple have in OS X a powerful and stable product that is capable of real evolution and I hope, provided they keep on top of it and continue to work so hard, that a major revision and rename will never be necessary.Don M. said:
Edit: Oh, and I might be alone on this, I'm not sure, but I think most people in the UK refer to it as "OS EX" not "OS 10". When Tiger was released and there was all the hype I only ever heard reporters call it "OS EX". Sounds much better
I guess that's your opinion. When OS X was first released, I called it "OS EX" but it got really ....annoying after a while, imo. Then, I heard someone call it OS "ten", among many others, and have been calling that it for.. a long time.miniConvert said:Edit: Oh, and I might be alone on this, I'm not sure, but I think most people in the UK refer to it as "OS EX" not "OS 10". When Tiger was released and there was all the hype I only ever heard reporters call it "OS EX". Sounds much better
Steve says OS X like "OS TEN".
Whatever works.
My guess is that OS XI would be as big a leap as OS9 to OSX was, both under the hood and with the GUI.
Maybe OS XI wouldn't be a single computer OS, but a scenario where iPod, Mac computers and other bits n bobs all communicate and work together. A sort of wider Bonjour. You tell your mirror that you're feeling a bit down, before you know it your mac is recording all the comedies it possibly can with EyeTV.
Who knows.
Maybe OS XI wouldn't be a single computer OS, but a scenario where iPod, Mac computers and other bits n bobs all communicate and work together. A sort of wider Bonjour. You tell your mirror that you're feeling a bit down, before you know it your mac is recording all the comedies it possibly can with EyeTV.
Who knows.