The numbering of using n.10, n.11, etc is still logical but I agree that it's not the most likely outcome. I do think they'll marker it differently. There is no sense to say "we're calling this 11 because we don't want to use double digits for the secondary numbering scheme." I think their market the move away from 10 as being the major shift in the desktop OS. That said, why not just keep the well know brand of OS X which they recently renamed from Mac OS X?
I don't think they'll being going from 10.n to 11.0 casually. 10.10 is more likely than 11.0. I think it'll stay 10.n until there is a major reworking of the entire OS, something bigger than SL under the hood and equally as big above the hood. (And no, it won't be a unification with iOS.)
I have great respect for John Siracusa and always read his mammoth OS X reviews from cover to cover, but one thing I have consistently disagreed with him on is his position on ObjC. And I feel qualified to disagree as a professional software developer who has worked in Java, C# and ObjC for the last 16 years.
I suspect somewhere in his development career he was exposed to the idea that VM-based languages were the future, and has never considered revising it. But even MS is distancing itself from .NET these days. Looking back, is it possible such languages were a fad started by Java?
And some of the things that he sees as hacks and workarounds in ObjC, I see as actual solutions to problems better than the VM-based languages ever did it. Take memory management: the ideal is that the programmer should never have to bother about it, probably everyone except hard core old-school can agree on that. But is periodically searching through all allocated memory looking for blocks to free really any kind of ultimate solution? Is it even a good solution? The ObjC/ARC approach of compiling in hidden function calls to scan up the stack and see if you're finished with a variable seems like a far more elegant solution, not a hack or workaround while we all wait for the Utopia of a VM-based language.
Thanks. I very much appreciate this response. I have to say that Siracusa's view had me worried since first reading it.
And THEN a year and a half later when OS XI is released and computing is again changed forever, they can refer to the keyboard and mouse system as being "long in the tooth".
Nope. 10.4.10 and 10.4.11. They don't have to do anything.
Erm..........there is still Cougar.......which has not been name yet.
Sabertooth has not existed for the last 42 million years. I doubt Apple with name their next as that! LOL.....
There seems to be a lot of confusion in this thread regarding the representation of versions, which has nothing to do with the representation of decimal numbers.
Traditionally (though many people don't follow this norm), version numbers are represented such that the <major>, <minor>, and <patch> versions can be easily expressed through a dot notation such as <major>.<minor>.<patch>. This notation is similar, but totally unrelated to, the representation of IP addresses.
Personally, I attribute the following meanings to the different parts of my own version numbers:
<major> - Increments every time all the changes brought in by <minor> versions are considered stable, if there is a significant difference in feature set between the latest <minor> and the latest <major> increments. When this number is incremented, <minor> and <patch> reset back to 0. All <major> increments in my software can be considered to be extremely stable, and anyone wishing to stay in a very stable branch should avoid the <minor> increments. Patches to <minor> increments that apply to the last <major> increment are always back ported to it. An increment to this number also means that the previous stable branch has been discontinued and will thus not see any additional <minor> or <patch> increments.
<minor> - Increments every time new features are introduced in an update. When this number increments, <patch> is reset back to 0. A <minor> version may become a <major> version if there is a significant difference between it and the last <major> increment and <patch> remains at 0 for extended periods of time (meaning no bug fixes, meaning stability has been achieved).
<patch> - Increments every time a patch is released without adding any features. Personally I choose to release patches independently from <major> and <minor> releases because they may be applicable to several <major> and <minor> releases, thus my bug fixes never go into either <major> or <minor> releases.
It is obvious that Apple attributes a slightly different meaning to the version components, but the notation is exactly the same.
Regarding OS X and iOS merging, I really don't think that will ever happen. Apple collects usage statistics, and I don't know many people who, for example, make any use of the Launchpad despite it having become a permanent fixture in Mountain Lion's dock because it's inconvenient and unintuitive compared to either Spotlight or simply browsing the Applications directory.
EDIT: AI thought that <major>, <minor>, and <patch> were HTML tags...
Actually, there's a strong argument for saying that iCloud was a major step backwards - which simply supports my argument.
The main thing I used mac.com for was iDisk - I could mirror ALL my files to the iDisk and have them shared among my computers as well as a secure off-line backup. When Apple replaced that with iCloud, it was a big let down - since most of my files are from apps that don't support iCloud's backup storage.
No- that doesn't support your point. It supports mine. I concede that the implementation of iCloud hurt your apps that used iDisk because they are no longer supported. But as we sit today, iDisk doesn't exist- iCloud does- so your point is moot.
Does it suck they dropped support in your specific case? Sure. But how does that change today about which is a better OS? And the fact that while, in your case, iCloud isn't better than iDisk- iCloud is better than no iCloud.
There's different definitions and implementations of merging. All Microsoft did was throw 2 completely separate OSes in a single package. It would be like Apple adding an "iOS" button into OSX, which will throw you into iOS mode. ie, it will never happen. What I DO see Apple doing is from the backend, unify some apis, and from the front end, unify some UI paradigms as well as apps, etc. An iMac will never run the iPhone version of iOS, but Apple can retain different versions of it's OS which all include differing levels of capability and flexibility. iOS is getting more powerful and flexible all the time, as is the hardware its running on. They dont need to look or function in an identical manner, its all about the branding and consistency in certain over arching paradigms. OSX is used in many, many professional industries for many applications- Apple knows this, and they're not about to get rid of that. Is it becoming less important to Apple in the grand scheme of things? Yes, it is, and that's ok.
And, if you define merged loosely enough, you could just say they already are. They'll remain distinct under and above the hood.
If there is one thing that proves Steve Jobs' taste was not infallible it's the "cat names" on OS X and the subsequent graphic design nightmares necessary for box art.
Case in point:
Ask any serious artist or designer what's the tackiest possible pattern one could use in a design, or what pattern is so tacky that it almost personifies tackiness itself. The answer will almost invariably be "animal prints" or "leopard spots." This has been true for as long as I can recall (and that's a long time).
The only thing worse, is the tech industries sad history of using "scary animal names" in general like Eagles, Bears, etc. which are supposed to be "Harsh" or "Xtreeme!" or "Intense" and indicate some kind of macho-manly whatever. It's tasteless and tacky and it has never quite "fit" IMO with the whole Apple aesthetic.
I think the recent desktop switch to space imagery is a good direction to go. They should ditch the tacky kitty-cat crap altogether and go with space/galaxy type names.
Uh huh. Apple's products are such dismal failures because of the pictures on the boxes. /s
The most logical answer is this release will be 10.9 and the following year they'll come on stage and explain they've ran out of numbers and therefore the new release will be 11.0
If they explain it as simply as that it will be perfectly understandable and acceptable.
It would get them laughed off stage. For starters, the press would make jokes about Apple not being able to count past 10 without taking their shoes off. (And the stock would fall 8%).
There's a reason Apple has gone from emphasizing version numbers (9.2.3, 10.1..5) to cat names (while they use the numbers on their web site, almost all the references use the cat name. You buy OS X Mountain Lion, not OS X 10.8). Look at their "mountain lion" page - they don't even mention the version number: http://www.apple.com/osx/
Add to that the fact that version numbers often include numbers greater than 10. Look at Windows build numbers or driver numbers - things like 7.1341.12 are common.
Sabertooth has not existed for the last 42 million years. I doubt Apple with name their next as that! LOL.....
Not by itself. I could, however, see them switch from cat names to another naming convention at some point. Dinosaurs, celestial objects, sea creatures....
However, I believe the change to OS XI (or whatever they call it) and the change in naming conventions will occur when there's a massive change in the structure of the OS. I don't know what that would be, but something that takes the OS in a completely new direction - along the lines of the Mac OS 9 to OS X transition. That's when it makes sense to change the naming convention.
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.
I think OS X and iOS will be merged together eventually. Its already rumored Apple wants to takes its desktop OS and move it to the ARM architecture and merging iOS and Mac OS together would pave the way for this to happen. They're already getting closer and closer together as it is. Its only a matter of time before 2 OS's become 1 OS. By then, you'll have everything you need, possibly without the need for Windows. It would truly have full control of its own hardware and software and not have to rely on others (Intel) to come out with better technologies.
This doesn't mean that other Apple devices such as the AppleTV has to run the entire OS, just like it doesn't run a full blown version of iOS with the same interface and everything. They could still use iOS (or whatever they end up calling it) in all of their devices, including their computer lineup.
I think OS X and iOS will be merged together eventually. Its already rumored Apple wants to takes its desktop OS and move it to the ARM architecture and merging iOS and Mac OS together would pave the way for this to happen. They're already getting closer and closer together as it is. Its only a matter of time before 2 OS's become 1 OS. By then, you'll have everything you need, possibly without the need for Windows. It would truly have full control of its own hardware and software and not have to rely on others (Intel) to come out with better technologies.
This doesn't mean that other Apple devices such as the AppleTV has to run the entire OS, just like it doesn't run a full blown version of iOS with the same interface and everything. They could still use iOS (or whatever they end up calling it) in all of their devices, including their computer lineup.
You can't say it will be one OS and then say that the devices will run a different OS in the next paragraph. It's there is one OS it's one OS. Mac OS X and iOS will continue to share frameworks and other code but unless you have an argument that makes putting Cocoa, not CocoaTouch, all the desktop drivers, etc. on an iPod Touch and Apple TV and growing the installation size to 5GB they will not be a single, merged OS.
You can't say it will be one OS and then say that the devices will run a different OS in the next paragraph. It's there is one OS it's one OS. Mac OS X and iOS will continue to share frameworks and other code but unless you have an argument that makes putting Cocoa, not CocoaTouch, all the desktop drivers, etc. on an iPod Touch and Apple TV and growing the installation size to 5GB they will not be a single, merged OS.
Its still the same OS, I never said they were running different OS's. You can't tell me that the AppleTV, iPod Nano, and Shuffle doesn't run iOS can you? Either way you look at, its still iOS just with a different interface tailored to that specific device. The interface doesn't make the entire OS. Its the cohesiveness of everything regardless of the UI design. That being said, AppleTV or any other device doesn't need the full 5GB installation...that doesn't not make them the same OS.
Who's to say that Macs eventually won't have CocoaTouch, or some other kind of interaction thats married the 2 OS's together? We don't know what Apple's going to do down the road and this isn't something thats going to happen immediately. Were talking at least 2yrs down the road here. Merging the OS's together totally makes sense to me and is something I think will happen. When it does, I'm willing to bet it will work out a hell of a lot better than the way Microsoft did it with Windows 8.
We have that now. Have had it for roughly 20 years or more.
As much as I'd love to agree with you, I will sadly admit it is very handy to be able to run Windows in a VM on my Mac and virtually full speed. But I do get what you're trying to get at here hehe...
Its still the same OS, I never said they were running different OS's. You can't tell me that the AppleTV, iPod Nano, and Shuffle doesn't run iOS can you? Either way you look at, its still iOS just with a different interface tailored to that specific device. The interface doesn't make the entire OS. Its the cohesiveness of everything regardless of the UI design. That being said, AppleTV or any other device doesn't need the full 5GB installation...that doesn't not make them the same OS.
Who's to say that Macs eventually won't have CocoaTouch, or some other kind of interaction? We don't know what Apple's going to do down the road. Merging the OS's together totally makes sense to me and is something I think will happen. When it does, I'm willing to bet it will work out a hell of a lot better than the way Microsoft did it with Windows 8.
Adding CocoaTouch to Cocoa for some hybrid Mac solution isn't adding iOS to Mac OS X, it's adding an element from iOS. Same goes for QTX foundation coming from iOS to Mac OS X. Sharing of relevant and useful code didn't Mac OS X become iOS. For you to say that it will be the same OS you are 1) saying that an installation will work on the Apple TV, iPhone, iPad and any Mac, and 2) Apple will rename them so they follow what MS is doing with Windows, except go even further and make Windows Phone become Windows RT. Neither of these will happen.
If Mac OS X runs on ARM that does not mean it's not iOS. Darwin OS already runs on ARM so there only hurdles are to get the appropriate drivers and make sure the UI is fluid and smooth enough to be reasonable for an ARM-based product. There would still be driver issues for 3rd-party devices which I think is a strong indication they wouldn't go this route.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScrittoreSabino
Integrate & open up Calendar Address book, notes and reminder better.
Siri. Also, make it available offline
iTunes & App Store: ...
+1 for each of these.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
The numbering of using n.10, n.11, etc is still logical but I agree that it's not the most likely outcome. I do think they'll marker it differently. There is no sense to say "we're calling this 11 because we don't want to use double digits for the secondary numbering scheme." I think their market the move away from 10 as being the major shift in the desktop OS. That said, why not just keep the well know brand of OS X which they recently renamed from Mac OS X?
I don't think they'll being going from 10.n to 11.0 casually. 10.10 is more likely than 11.0. I think it'll stay 10.n until there is a major reworking of the entire OS, something bigger than SL under the hood and equally as big above the hood. (And no, it won't be a unification with iOS.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
I have great respect for John Siracusa and always read his mammoth OS X reviews from cover to cover, but one thing I have consistently disagreed with him on is his position on ObjC. And I feel qualified to disagree as a professional software developer who has worked in Java, C# and ObjC for the last 16 years.
I suspect somewhere in his development career he was exposed to the idea that VM-based languages were the future, and has never considered revising it. But even MS is distancing itself from .NET these days. Looking back, is it possible such languages were a fad started by Java?
And some of the things that he sees as hacks and workarounds in ObjC, I see as actual solutions to problems better than the VM-based languages ever did it. Take memory management: the ideal is that the programmer should never have to bother about it, probably everyone except hard core old-school can agree on that. But is periodically searching through all allocated memory looking for blocks to free really any kind of ultimate solution? Is it even a good solution? The ObjC/ARC approach of compiling in hidden function calls to scan up the stack and see if you're finished with a variable seems like a far more elegant solution, not a hack or workaround while we all wait for the Utopia of a VM-based language.
Thanks. I very much appreciate this response. I have to say that Siracusa's view had me worried since first reading it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Sabertooth.
And THEN a year and a half later when OS XI is released and computing is again changed forever, they can refer to the keyboard and mouse system as being "long in the tooth".
Nope. 10.4.10 and 10.4.11. They don't have to do anything.
Erm..........there is still Cougar.......which has not been name yet.
Sabertooth has not existed for the last 42 million years. I doubt Apple with name their next as that! LOL.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Nonsense.
I like a LOT of your other points, though.
OK, I give... break out the duster and chaps and slap some tan leather on all of it. OSXI should start the bovine series
Traditionally (though many people don't follow this norm), version numbers are represented such that the <major>, <minor>, and <patch> versions can be easily expressed through a dot notation such as <major>.<minor>.<patch>. This notation is similar, but totally unrelated to, the representation of IP addresses.
Personally, I attribute the following meanings to the different parts of my own version numbers:
<major> - Increments every time all the changes brought in by <minor> versions are considered stable, if there is a significant difference in feature set between the latest <minor> and the latest <major> increments. When this number is incremented, <minor> and <patch> reset back to 0. All <major> increments in my software can be considered to be extremely stable, and anyone wishing to stay in a very stable branch should avoid the <minor> increments. Patches to <minor> increments that apply to the last <major> increment are always back ported to it. An increment to this number also means that the previous stable branch has been discontinued and will thus not see any additional <minor> or <patch> increments.
<minor> - Increments every time new features are introduced in an update. When this number increments, <patch> is reset back to 0. A <minor> version may become a <major> version if there is a significant difference between it and the last <major> increment and <patch> remains at 0 for extended periods of time (meaning no bug fixes, meaning stability has been achieved).
<patch> - Increments every time a patch is released without adding any features. Personally I choose to release patches independently from <major> and <minor> releases because they may be applicable to several <major> and <minor> releases, thus my bug fixes never go into either <major> or <minor> releases.
It is obvious that Apple attributes a slightly different meaning to the version components, but the notation is exactly the same.
Regarding OS X and iOS merging, I really don't think that will ever happen. Apple collects usage statistics, and I don't know many people who, for example, make any use of the Launchpad despite it having become a permanent fixture in Mountain Lion's dock because it's inconvenient and unintuitive compared to either Spotlight or simply browsing the Applications directory.
EDIT: AI thought that <major>, <minor>, and <patch> were HTML tags...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chairman Mao
Sabertooth has not existed for the last 42 million years. I doubt Apple with name their next as that! LOL.....
Tell me that you're joking. They went extinct only 11,000 years ago.
No- that doesn't support your point. It supports mine. I concede that the implementation of iCloud hurt your apps that used iDisk because they are no longer supported. But as we sit today, iDisk doesn't exist- iCloud does- so your point is moot.
Does it suck they dropped support in your specific case? Sure. But how does that change today about which is a better OS? And the fact that while, in your case, iCloud isn't better than iDisk- iCloud is better than no iCloud.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
There's different definitions and implementations of merging. All Microsoft did was throw 2 completely separate OSes in a single package. It would be like Apple adding an "iOS" button into OSX, which will throw you into iOS mode. ie, it will never happen. What I DO see Apple doing is from the backend, unify some apis, and from the front end, unify some UI paradigms as well as apps, etc. An iMac will never run the iPhone version of iOS, but Apple can retain different versions of it's OS which all include differing levels of capability and flexibility. iOS is getting more powerful and flexible all the time, as is the hardware its running on. They dont need to look or function in an identical manner, its all about the branding and consistency in certain over arching paradigms. OSX is used in many, many professional industries for many applications- Apple knows this, and they're not about to get rid of that. Is it becoming less important to Apple in the grand scheme of things? Yes, it is, and that's ok.
And, if you define merged loosely enough, you could just say they already are. They'll remain distinct under and above the hood.
Uh huh. Apple's products are such dismal failures because of the pictures on the boxes. /s
It would get them laughed off stage. For starters, the press would make jokes about Apple not being able to count past 10 without taking their shoes off. (And the stock would fall 8%).
There's a reason Apple has gone from emphasizing version numbers (9.2.3, 10.1..5) to cat names (while they use the numbers on their web site, almost all the references use the cat name. You buy OS X Mountain Lion, not OS X 10.8). Look at their "mountain lion" page - they don't even mention the version number:
http://www.apple.com/osx/
Add to that the fact that version numbers often include numbers greater than 10. Look at Windows build numbers or driver numbers - things like 7.1341.12 are common.
They could use Demi Moore's picture on the box. Oh, wait. Gazoobee would probably think that was tacky.
Not by itself. I could, however, see them switch from cat names to another naming convention at some point. Dinosaurs, celestial objects, sea creatures....
However, I believe the change to OS XI (or whatever they call it) and the change in naming conventions will occur when there's a massive change in the structure of the OS. I don't know what that would be, but something that takes the OS in a completely new direction - along the lines of the Mac OS 9 to OS X transition. That's when it makes sense to change the naming convention.
What's wrong with 10.10?
Originally Posted by Chairman Mao
Sabertooth has not existed for… I doubt Apple with name their next as that! LOL.....
Why does that matter?
I think OS X and iOS will be merged together eventually. Its already rumored Apple wants to takes its desktop OS and move it to the ARM architecture and merging iOS and Mac OS together would pave the way for this to happen. They're already getting closer and closer together as it is. Its only a matter of time before 2 OS's become 1 OS. By then, you'll have everything you need, possibly without the need for Windows. It would truly have full control of its own hardware and software and not have to rely on others (Intel) to come out with better technologies.
This doesn't mean that other Apple devices such as the AppleTV has to run the entire OS, just like it doesn't run a full blown version of iOS with the same interface and everything. They could still use iOS (or whatever they end up calling it) in all of their devices, including their computer lineup.
Originally Posted by macxpress
By then, you'll have everything you need, possibly without the need for Windows.
We have that now. Have had it for roughly 20 years or more.
OS X Bald Eagle
You can't say it will be one OS and then say that the devices will run a different OS in the next paragraph. It's there is one OS it's one OS. Mac OS X and iOS will continue to share frameworks and other code but unless you have an argument that makes putting Cocoa, not CocoaTouch, all the desktop drivers, etc. on an iPod Touch and Apple TV and growing the installation size to 5GB they will not be a single, merged OS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
You can't say it will be one OS and then say that the devices will run a different OS in the next paragraph. It's there is one OS it's one OS. Mac OS X and iOS will continue to share frameworks and other code but unless you have an argument that makes putting Cocoa, not CocoaTouch, all the desktop drivers, etc. on an iPod Touch and Apple TV and growing the installation size to 5GB they will not be a single, merged OS.
Its still the same OS, I never said they were running different OS's. You can't tell me that the AppleTV, iPod Nano, and Shuffle doesn't run iOS can you? Either way you look at, its still iOS just with a different interface tailored to that specific device. The interface doesn't make the entire OS. Its the cohesiveness of everything regardless of the UI design. That being said, AppleTV or any other device doesn't need the full 5GB installation...that doesn't not make them the same OS.
Who's to say that Macs eventually won't have CocoaTouch, or some other kind of interaction thats married the 2 OS's together? We don't know what Apple's going to do down the road and this isn't something thats going to happen immediately. Were talking at least 2yrs down the road here. Merging the OS's together totally makes sense to me and is something I think will happen. When it does, I'm willing to bet it will work out a hell of a lot better than the way Microsoft did it with Windows 8.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
We have that now. Have had it for roughly 20 years or more.
As much as I'd love to agree with you, I will sadly admit it is very handy to be able to run Windows in a VM on my Mac and virtually full speed. But I do get what you're trying to get at here hehe...
Adding CocoaTouch to Cocoa for some hybrid Mac solution isn't adding iOS to Mac OS X, it's adding an element from iOS. Same goes for QTX foundation coming from iOS to Mac OS X. Sharing of relevant and useful code didn't Mac OS X become iOS. For you to say that it will be the same OS you are 1) saying that an installation will work on the Apple TV, iPhone, iPad and any Mac, and 2) Apple will rename them so they follow what MS is doing with Windows, except go even further and make Windows Phone become Windows RT. Neither of these will happen.
If Mac OS X runs on ARM that does not mean it's not iOS. Darwin OS already runs on ARM so there only hurdles are to get the appropriate drivers and make sure the UI is fluid and smooth enough to be reasonable for an ARM-based product. There would still be driver issues for 3rd-party devices which I think is a strong indication they wouldn't go this route.
Quote:
Originally Posted by supremedesigner
So what will happen after 10.9? 10.10?
OS XI 11.0