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 does OS X end and OS XI begin?
- Thread starter WiiDSmoker
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Rubbish. They won't completely converge whilst we are still using the current input methods.
There is no way to do this properly without compromising one, or both the user experiences.
Saying "O S Ten" is way faster then "O S E LE VEN" and this will influenciate apple keeping OS X for some time still..
... The last release of Plan 9 was released a decade ago, and Apple could more easily upgrade the BSD base of OS X.
I dont think so. That would be silly. Then they could just keep going forever like 10.100,...,10.1000, you name it. For instance 10.10 is mathematically equal to 10.1 which was the 1st OS X software and Mountain Lion is the 8th as it's called OS X 10.8. So, according to human logic, after Mountain Lion, 10.9 will come out and after that BOOM... OS XII (whick is actually OS 11). So there you go!
Version numbers have never abided by mathematical rules, especially when it comes to trailing zeros. Many times it something like platform number X, release number Y, and build Z. (I don't know if Apple actually call them platform, release, build. I'm just speaking generically). Then it get's shorted to X.Y.Z. So no, 10.1 and 10.10 are not the same thing.
Edit: I had to look up an example: Apple released both 10.4.1 and 10.4.10.
Last edited:
10.0 was the first Mac OS X version, 10.8 is the ninth Mac OS X version.
And as mentioned countless times before, 10.1 is not the same as 10.10 when speaking of software versions, otherwise Mac OS X 10.4.1 would have been the same as 10.4.10, and Tiger got up to 10.4.11.
Right, but Plan 9 still newer technology, at least in terms of the ideas behind it. I remember when Apple used to advertise about all the old code in Windows, but you can trace OS X's roots all the way back to 1969!
Anyway, I take your point. Technically, cars are 19th century tech, so maybe once an industry matures, there's no need to reinvent the wheel. I'm a fan of Plan 9's philosophy, though-- clustering devices to create a system rather than having a bunch of different systems talking to each other. It seems like an OS for the cloud.
Last edited:
People really need to read threads before they reply to them...perhaps what they want to say has already been addressed before (like 10 times)?
Some thoughts
I think the moniker "OSX" has become what "MacOS" used to be. It used to be MacOS was the name of the OS, and the version number followed, for example MacOS 9.2 or Mac OS X. Somewhere along the line, OSX became the name of the OS, not just it's iteration denotation. Whereas MacOS used to appear in a sentence with Windows, now it's "Windows or OSX" The trailing number has become the only denotation for version number. So we get OSX 10.8.1, which is spoken "OS ten ten point eight point one." For this reason, they could keep OSX as the primary base name of the OS, much like Windows is just Windows with different versions (vista, 7, XP)
So, I believe the next major version will be called OSX 11, OS11, or i11, but not the ridiculous OSXI.
That being said, as long as we keep speaking "OSX" as "O S Ten" and not "O S eX" then OSX 11 will look OK, but will sound awkward when spoken.
For this reason alone, I think the best bet is on OS11 or i11.
I think the moniker "OSX" has become what "MacOS" used to be. It used to be MacOS was the name of the OS, and the version number followed, for example MacOS 9.2 or Mac OS X. Somewhere along the line, OSX became the name of the OS, not just it's iteration denotation. Whereas MacOS used to appear in a sentence with Windows, now it's "Windows or OSX" The trailing number has become the only denotation for version number. So we get OSX 10.8.1, which is spoken "OS ten ten point eight point one." For this reason, they could keep OSX as the primary base name of the OS, much like Windows is just Windows with different versions (vista, 7, XP)
So, I believe the next major version will be called OSX 11, OS11, or i11, but not the ridiculous OSXI.
That being said, as long as we keep speaking "OSX" as "O S Ten" and not "O S eX" then OSX 11 will look OK, but will sound awkward when spoken.
For this reason alone, I think the best bet is on OS11 or i11.
HAHAHAHA LOOKS LIKE YOU WERE DEAD WRONG!!!!
All of these people saying that the two systems will merge anytime soon, are talking out of their ass. OSX and iOS will remain separate for a long time, assuming they will merge at all. You people were saying since 2009 (when the iPad rumors were in full swing) that the iPhone OS and OSX will merge either A) around the time the unreleased tablet gets introduced or B) a year or two after. Well I'm happy you people were wrong and not running apple.
I agree with a lot said here, OSX will be around for a long time. If and when (and it's a big if) OS 11 comes out, it will be something revolutionary, and it won't be called XI. Either they will call it 11 or some other naming scheme.
Underneath they're pretty much the same sort of thing. I still believe Apple will merge them for marketing reasons at some point in the near future.
That makes absolutely no sense. Apple does not market iOS as a separate product. Although it is only $20 US, Apple sells OS X as a separate product for Macintosh owners. iOS is part of your iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, and TV. It is aimed at everyone--Mac users, Windows users, Linux users, and people who do not own a traditional computer. From a purely marketing point of view, to "merge" iOS and OS X would signal to everyone that Apple is turning its back on non-Mac customers.
Last edited:
Actually it didn't come later, cheetah and puma were just internal codenames that later caught on, they weren't made up ex post facto.
Year old thread etc.
Other than iOS devices are touch-screen and Macs are designed for mouse. Their apps included.
Husky is very ugly name .I think Mac OS 11 "Rottweiler"
Mac OS 11.0 Cockerpoodle
Umm, So you're telling me that 10.10 is a real number? They have to release 11 xi is only right
Version numbering of applications differs from mathematical numbers. And 10.1 is not the same as 10.10 when it comes to that version numbering, look at some browser or video transcoder application versions to see that.
It has also already been explained numerous times in this quite older thread, thus a resurrection might not have been necessary with capable reading comprehension.
Hmm that's odd because when I bought my very first Mac (Snow iMac) in 2001 it came with OS 9 (Classic) and OS X (1st edition). All the Mac reps when they had actual Mac reps at their store at CompUSA referred to it as OS X (Ten). Other Mac shops i've visited have referred to it as OS X (Ten).
The Best Buys I go to as well that have Mac reps refer to it as Ten. That's how I always referred to it as well especially since I came from Mac Classic (9) to OS X (Ten)
