Nope. 10.4.10 and 10.4.11. They don't have to do anything.
Lol, so you're saying they are going to go back to tiger and have the new OSX be 10.4.11? Why would they do that, lol, that makes no sense. They already do that anyway. Like right now we are currently on 10.8.2 technically. Apple has no choice but to call the next OS Mac OSXI 11.0 or change the name completely.
Ummm...no.
He is saying that just like they used 10.4.10 and 10.4.11, they can use 10.10 and 10.11
I really hope 10.9 is last version of OS X and iOS will take over. I want OS X to be classic OS to be used for professionals, designers, scientists, video-makers and photographers, while iOS will be used for main stream.
Nope. 10.4.10 and 10.4.11. They don't have to do anything.
Lol, so you're saying they are going to go back to tiger and have the new OSX be 10.4.11? Why would they do that, lol, that makes no sense. They already do that anyway. Like right now we are currently on 10.8.2 technically. Apple has no choice but to call the next OS Mac OSXI 11.0 or change the name completely.
Okay density check. Do you not see how the reference to 10.4.10 and 10.4.11 are a single EXAMPLE of how in the past Apple has indeed used numbers higher than .9 in their revision numbering in the past and so therefore there is no reason why they could not do so again in the future and have OS X 10.10 and OS X 10.11 as we as revisions of those, OS X 10.1.10 if they so choose.
There are some issues with such revision numbering - especially when software checks what version is installed before running or updating - and that code is not able to distinguish between 10.1 and 10.10 - this is similar to the Y2K bug and is not new in the world of software.
And to other posters - while in pure math / numbering - there is no difference between 10.1 and 10.10 - in software versions there is clearly a difference. Just as there would be in an address for example if your address is 1 My Street and my address is 10 My Street - there is no confusion, right?
Would it help you if they wrote out the entire version as OS X version 10 revision 10 update 11 in order to avoid using the shorthand 10.10.11? in order to avoid any mistaking that for 10.1.11 which is version 10 revision 1 update 11?
Didn't Atari already have a Lynx and Jaguar product? Maybe they'll drop the cat naming and start something new. Or maybe just drop the names that used to just be codenames anyway.
Does anyone know when developers are typically able to download a new OS such as 10.9?
Once it's actually announced.
iOS and OS X won't merge, but OS X will take on ever more elements of its design.
Plenty of interactions from OS X can't (shouldn't) be done in iOS, and the larger the screen gets the sillier a 'simple' OS becomes.
It'll be interesting.
IS ANYONE ELSE GETTING HUNDREDS OF REQUESTS FROM THE APPLE PUSH SERVICE TODAY? I'VE MANUALLY ALLOWED EVERY SINGLE IP ADDRESS IN THE 17.172 BLOCK AND I STILL GET REQUESTS FROM THOSE IPS.
The presence of Macs running OS X 10.9, Apple's next-generation operating system, continues to expand, potentially hinting that a public unveiling could occur soon.
It was on February 16 of last year that Apple, for the first time, announced OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion. Now, nearly a year later, there is evidence that the company is hard at work testing the next version of its Mac operating system.
Traffic logs for AppleInsider show that visits from machines claiming to be running an unannounced OS X 10.9 spiked in the month of January.
Evidence of Apple testing OS X 10.9 first surfaced late last year, when AppleInsider tracked a handful of visits from machines running the next-generation operating system in the month of October. But while October visits from OS X 10.9 were around three dozen total, the number swelled into the thousands in the just-concluded month of January.
For the last couple of years, Apple has been upgrading OS X on an annual basis. Last year, OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion launched on the Mac App Store in July, while OS X 10.7 Lion launched in July of 2011.
If Apple keeps to the same schedule this year, the company could formally unveil OS X 10.9 in the coming weeks, giving developers time to prepare for a summer 2013 launch of its next Mac operating system.
It would be funny if it comes BEFORE 10.8.3 is released to the masses...
Does anyone know when developers are typically able to download a new OS such as 10.9?
First we'll need to get an official announcement and then they will offer the Betas to Mac OS X developers with paid accounts.
In years past they have had an event where they demoed the OS and then demoed it again months later when it was ear completion. This always seemed redundant and pointless. Last year they secretly arrange meetings with prominent tech writers/bloggers to demo the OS and offer them a Beta copy, then a week or two later they announced it on their website letting the tech writers/blogger and the rest of the internet do its thing.
I much prefer this new method with this new, yearly release cycle.
I think the version after 10.9, Apple might forgo the public numerical naming, and just use OS X (insert supplemental secondary animal or thing name here). Just a hunch, but who knows.
1) You can't see how one can look forward to a future event? I have never been disappointed by a Mac OS X update so I'm certainly looking forward to it.
Of course one can look forward to a future event, but looking forward to something that you have no knowledge of is silly.
If I have a dinner date with Taylor Swift, I can look forward to that dinner. But it's hard for me to look forward to dinner on June 19 when I have no idea who I'll be having dinner with or what I'll be eating or where I'll be.
The presence of Macs running OS X 10.9, Apple's next-generation operating system, continues to expand, potentially hinting that a public unveiling could occur soon.
Well now, what can Apple do next to obsolete recent Macs.
Perhaps a self drive function. "by Google!"
Come on Apple, we like your advancements, but I'm not about to fill the landfill with few year old Macs.
Comments
Originally Posted by Adam_Apple
And in case you guys didn't know, adding a 0 on the end of a decimal is pointless. lol
10.4.1 and 10.4.10 beg to differ.
Please Apple (if you read this site), don't forget to resolve the little bug which causes losses of WiFi signal on my 27" .......
Thanks
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam_Apple
Nope. 10.4.10 and 10.4.11. They don't have to do anything.
Lol, so you're saying they are going to go back to tiger and have the new OSX be 10.4.11? Why would they do that, lol, that makes no sense. They already do that anyway. Like right now we are currently on 10.8.2 technically. Apple has no choice but to call the next OS Mac OSXI 11.0 or change the name completely.
Ummm...no.
He is saying that just like they used 10.4.10 and 10.4.11, they can use 10.10 and 10.11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam_Apple
And in case you guys didn't know, adding a 0 on the end of a decimal is pointless. lol
These are naming conventions, not decimal numbers.
Fragmentation. /s
I really hope 10.9 is last version of OS X and iOS will take over. I want OS X to be classic OS to be used for professionals, designers, scientists, video-makers and photographers, while iOS will be used for main stream.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam_Apple
Nope. 10.4.10 and 10.4.11. They don't have to do anything.
Lol, so you're saying they are going to go back to tiger and have the new OSX be 10.4.11? Why would they do that, lol, that makes no sense. They already do that anyway. Like right now we are currently on 10.8.2 technically. Apple has no choice but to call the next OS Mac OSXI 11.0 or change the name completely.
Okay density check. Do you not see how the reference to 10.4.10 and 10.4.11 are a single EXAMPLE of how in the past Apple has indeed used numbers higher than .9 in their revision numbering in the past and so therefore there is no reason why they could not do so again in the future and have OS X 10.10 and OS X 10.11 as we as revisions of those, OS X 10.1.10 if they so choose.
There are some issues with such revision numbering - especially when software checks what version is installed before running or updating - and that code is not able to distinguish between 10.1 and 10.10 - this is similar to the Y2K bug and is not new in the world of software.
And to other posters - while in pure math / numbering - there is no difference between 10.1 and 10.10 - in software versions there is clearly a difference. Just as there would be in an address for example if your address is 1 My Street and my address is 10 My Street - there is no confusion, right?
Would it help you if they wrote out the entire version as OS X version 10 revision 10 update 11 in order to avoid using the shorthand 10.10.11? in order to avoid any mistaking that for 10.1.11 which is version 10 revision 1 update 11?
or maybe the entire world of software makers doesn't know what they are talking about, yeah, that's it - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning ;
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam_Apple
And in case you guys didn't know, adding a 0 on the end of a decimal is pointless. lol
In a numbering sequence, yes, in a product naming sequence notsomuch pointless: 10.1==Ten point One, 10.10== Ten-Ten
Does anyone know when developers are typically able to download a new OS such as 10.9?
Unless iOS can catch up to 11th version, but there's no time. Maybe universal iOS11.
Originally Posted by GeekOutTech
Does anyone know when developers are typically able to download a new OS such as 10.9?
Once it's actually announced.
iOS and OS X won't merge, but OS X will take on ever more elements of its design.
Plenty of interactions from OS X can't (shouldn't) be done in iOS, and the larger the screen gets the sillier a 'simple' OS becomes.
It'll be interesting.
IS ANYONE ELSE GETTING HUNDREDS OF REQUESTS FROM THE APPLE PUSH SERVICE TODAY? I'VE MANUALLY ALLOWED EVERY SINGLE IP ADDRESS IN THE 17.172 BLOCK AND I STILL GET REQUESTS FROM THOSE IPS.
Driving me crazy.
Will it mean the end of security updates for Intel Macs that can't run Mountain Lion?
Will a trackpad be required?
Apple giveth, and Apple taketh away...
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
The presence of Macs running OS X 10.9, Apple's next-generation operating system, continues to expand, potentially hinting that a public unveiling could occur soon.
It was on February 16 of last year that Apple, for the first time, announced OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion. Now, nearly a year later, there is evidence that the company is hard at work testing the next version of its Mac operating system.
Traffic logs for AppleInsider show that visits from machines claiming to be running an unannounced OS X 10.9 spiked in the month of January.
Evidence of Apple testing OS X 10.9 first surfaced late last year, when AppleInsider tracked a handful of visits from machines running the next-generation operating system in the month of October. But while October visits from OS X 10.9 were around three dozen total, the number swelled into the thousands in the just-concluded month of January.
For the last couple of years, Apple has been upgrading OS X on an annual basis. Last year, OS X 10.8 Mountain Lion launched on the Mac App Store in July, while OS X 10.7 Lion launched in July of 2011.
If Apple keeps to the same schedule this year, the company could formally unveil OS X 10.9 in the coming weeks, giving developers time to prepare for a summer 2013 launch of its next Mac operating system.
It would be funny if it comes BEFORE 10.8.3 is released to the masses...
Stop jacking the thread with your asinine comments.
First we'll need to get an official announcement and then they will offer the Betas to Mac OS X developers with paid accounts.
In years past they have had an event where they demoed the OS and then demoed it again months later when it was ear completion. This always seemed redundant and pointless. Last year they secretly arrange meetings with prominent tech writers/bloggers to demo the OS and offer them a Beta copy, then a week or two later they announced it on their website letting the tech writers/blogger and the rest of the internet do its thing.
I much prefer this new method with this new, yearly release cycle.
Originally Posted by mfryd
Will 10.9 be the first release that only runs software from the App store?
I doubt it.
Will it mean the end of security updates for Intel Macs that can't run Mountain Lion?
No other version has ever done that, so I can't imagine this will.
Will a trackpad be required?
Of course not. When they get rid of the mouse, it will be all at once.
Of course one can look forward to a future event, but looking forward to something that you have no knowledge of is silly.
If I have a dinner date with Taylor Swift, I can look forward to that dinner. But it's hard for me to look forward to dinner on June 19 when I have no idea who I'll be having dinner with or what I'll be eating or where I'll be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
The presence of Macs running OS X 10.9, Apple's next-generation operating system, continues to expand, potentially hinting that a public unveiling could occur soon.
Well now, what can Apple do next to obsolete recent Macs.
Perhaps a self drive function. "by Google!"
Come on Apple, we like your advancements, but I'm not about to fill the landfill with few year old Macs.