PDA

View Full Version : "Mac OS X v11" ?!!!!!

macsarewaybetter
12-23-2001, 09:27 AM
In the latest article on OS X it mentions going from 10.5 to X 11

surely this is a contradiction - has the person that wrote this article forgotten that the X actually is a roman numeral meaning (and pronounced) 10.
I think you'll find normal decimal numbers mean the maximum .x upgrades is .9 (may not use more than .6) then Mac OS 11 not X version 11!!!

[ 12-23-2001: Message edited by: macsarewaybetter ]</p>
Logan Cale
12-23-2001, 11:26 AM
Apple calls it "Mac OS X v10.0"
applenut
12-23-2001, 01:51 PM
yea, unfortunately the problem was created by Apple.

Mac OS X 10.0.0
Mac OS X 10.1
Mac OS X 10.1.2
Mac OS X 10.2
Mac OS XI?
CosmoNut
12-24-2001, 02:30 PM
I'm sure they have a full naming/branding plan in place for when it'll actually hit 11.x. Surely they didn't blindly name the new OS without knowing what would come after X.
EmAn
12-24-2001, 07:56 PM
[quote]Originally posted by CosmoNut:
<strong>I'm sure they have a full naming/branding plan in place for when it'll actually hit 11.x. Surely they didn't blindly name the new OS without knowing what would come after X.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't know, but I have a feeling they didn't give it much thought.
The Rootwitch
12-24-2001, 08:15 PM
I can't wait for Mac OS XXX.
Fran441
12-24-2001, 08:42 PM
:rolleyes:
G4Dude
12-24-2001, 08:48 PM
[quote]Originally posted by The Rootwitch:
<strong>I can't wait for Mac OS XXX.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Dude, you'll be dead
CosmoNut
12-26-2001, 02:45 PM
[quote]Originally posted by EmAn:
<strong>

I don't know, but I have a feeling they didn't give it much thought.</strong><hr></blockquote>

It seems to me that in such a large company, at least one person would have raised their hand and asked,

"Um, excuse me, but what do we do when it goes past version 10?"

I'd almost be willing to give up using a Mac if they couldn't even figure that out.
applenut
12-26-2001, 03:26 PM
[quote]Originally posted by EmAn:
<strong>

I don't know, but I have a feeling they didn't give it much thought.</strong><hr></blockquote>

lol. agreed.

the real reason for the confusion is thta up to the public beta or so, Apple was set on calling it Mac OS X 1.0. and then 1.x, 2.0, 2.x, etc. Only problem was that it caused problems apparantly with apps that check for the OS version
Logan Cale
12-26-2001, 03:55 PM
It should just be Mac OS X. X meaning 10. It can also be referred to as Mac OS 10. Then they have the choice to call it either Mac OS XI or Mac OS 11 when that comes.
Nebagakid
12-26-2001, 11:23 PM
Mac OS X v.11.0

it is that easy fools

or, they just stop at 10.999999
peperone
12-27-2001, 05:24 AM
No you are all wrong.

They start calling it "Mac OS X 200x" :p
Willoughby
12-27-2001, 10:04 AM
[quote]Originally posted by G4Dude:
<strong>

Dude, you'll be dead</strong><hr></blockquote>


Nah, It took us 16 years to get to version 10. So lets assume another 16 for another 10 and then 16 more for yet another 10. Thats only 32 years from now. Hopefully we'll all still be around. heh

:D
Bogie
12-27-2001, 10:23 PM
Well, as far as the arthur of the article goes I think its pretty clear after reading it that he was simply using it as an example to discuss Apple's new approach to system software releases.

However, as far as Apple goes, I don't know that "v.11" really matters, the question is more what is Apple's new release strategy when it comes to system software: will X v.10.x continue to be updated or will Apple upgrade it to a new system? Jobs has said it is the basis for the next decade of Macintosh ... but does that mean we will have "systems" like 7, 8, and 9? All really just feature add-ons to X v.10? Don't know but I but if I knew more about NeXT development schedules I bet I would know.
iChmul
12-29-2001, 10:50 PM
hey what about:
Mac OS X v.11 = Mac OS X xp?
or Mac OS X 2003
or Mac OS X me
or Mac OS X se (second edition)

what I want to say:

Mac OS X v.10.1.2 &lt;= this name is awful! It remebers me on old Mercedes-benz automobiles, called C 180 (for a 1,8l machine) 2,5 E (in itīs 2,5l edition) , thats bullshit, same thing with apple...

why didnīt they take the system of mac os x server x.0 ?
and do you really think it was a problem caused by apps checking the system number? doesnīt Win XP have this OS Simulation mode which tells an application which faked OS version itīs running on? take could have taken that shit... :D