Apple promises to show off new versions of both iOS and OS X at WWDC 2013



  • Reply 101 of 108
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    As always... I get to throw in a last word on the forums because I'm mostly late to the party.

    I've stated over the last couple of weeks that I feel the WWDC and the new iOS 7 and OS X updates are going to be HUGE and epic in proportions to the "new" and hugely successful Apple after SJ.

    Because the Apple ecosystem and the tight integration to all of it's devices is "the secret sauce" that sells the "meat" (hardware)... it should come as no surprise that Apple will take this to the n-th degree.

    It's also a second good reason why there are delays with the new products. The first reason I subscribe to, is that new chips (Haswell, 802.11ac, etc.) aren't ready in deliverable quantities... and the drivers still need more testing.

    Integration = Lynx .... pun intended as Soli noted earlier.... and I'm going with this new cat as well.

    NOTE: I find it amusing that many posters here... and on the net in general... think that THEY are the only ones using a device and have ideas on how to improve it or the software. I mean... as if Apple and all of it's talent doesn't see and experience this daily, are not working their butts off improving it while we just talk about it, and in essence working in a vacuum and love Apple just because they have a job.

    In addition, all of the "Armchair Quarterback Anal-cysts" constantly:

    [*] beating the "Android is Winning Drum"...
    [*] Samsung will fork Android and/or beat Apple in Asia with Tizen...
    [*] Amazon is The Online Merchant after a successful fork, with future profit projections in the trillions built into their stock price....

    ... and then having the gall to only calculate/speculate Apple based on it's hardware products alone. Forgetting that it is iOS and OS X as the developer engine of choice, that makes Apple products consistently kick all of the other OSes collective butts. Google outfitted with Macs as the developer hardware and OS of choice; Windows running better on Macs than any other PC on the market, iOS devices the only consideration for the enterprise and even government as they switch from Windows-only shops.

    And the sauce that ties it all together and makes it a Tech Gourmet's Delight?..........ready for it?.....Slackjaw Time: [SIZE=4][B][COLOR=red]iOSX[/COLOR][/B][/SIZE] :smokey:

    Yup! X as in "ex"... not ten. If that's what the majority of the people call it... so be it. Name recognition is king. Also, a new kind of small, slinky, sexy cat... that happens to conveniently end with an "x". (Tied that up rather nice now didn't I ?!)

    I seriously think we're going to see something "akin" to the merging of iOS and OS X... something similar in theory to Microsoft's attempt. However... this time it will be done RIGHT! And for Apple's future in all of their endeavors... it's what's going to count.... A LOT... as in Billions of a lot.

    Last Notes:
    [*] the merging of mobile and the desktop is also what Canonical is trying to get to work with Ubuntu...
    [*] Google will eventually attempt with Android/Chrome OS...
    [*] and we definitely know that Microsoft is going Ball(mer)s-To-The-Walls with this initiative.

    Leave it to Apple to actually make it work :)
  • Reply 102 of 108
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    Before the "OH DAWG NO!" crowd hits me up... this is NOT to say that OS X will automatically die as we know it for professional applications. It will still be the "Developer's Choice" as well as the content creator's choice for production environments, but with many more hooks into iOS for the rest of the 90% of users (Apple customers) on the planet.

    Also, it will allow not only apps from the OS X App Store... but also those from the iOS App Store, and will also find it's way into a new Apple TV, and the new Apple Mini as it's core family server.

    PS. The only thing I'm legally "high on" right now is the fact that I called and bet on the total scrubbing of Barca and Real Madrid in the CL by my beloved Bayern and BVB Dortmund... but "Smokey" I remain..... :smokey:
  • Reply 103 of 108
    mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member


    Originally Posted by v5v View Post


    I realize this makes me a fuddy-duddy, but I can't stand using names instead of numbers. I can't remember the order in which they were released, so when someone says "Im using Panther" I have no idea where that fits into the evolution timeline.


    What's wrong with 10.8.3?


    I don't think it makes you a fuddy-duddy at all. I've had the same confusion myself. Though recently I've attributed that to a) not paying as close attention, and b) the cat naming seems to make this worse (for me.)


    I don't think there's anything wrong with version numbers, though even that I could see Apple simplifying a bit. It feels a bit like the last few versions were really more along the lines of what Apple did when they previously called them:


    • System 6

    • System 7

    • Mac OS 8

    • Mac OS 9

    • Mac OS X (10.0 "Cheetah" but not publicly)


    In other words, and this is why it seems (to me) that "OS X" has really become a name (the fact that they call it "OS X v10.8" is a hint here), the following (or at least maybe the last few):


    • Mac OS X (10.1 "Puma" but not publicly)

    • Mac OS X Jaguar (10.2)

    • Mac OS X Panther (10.3)

    • Mac OS X Tiger (10.4)

    • Mac OS X Leopard (10.5)

    • Mac OS X Snow Leopard (10.6)

    • Mac OS X Lion (10.7)

    • Mac OS X Mountain Lion (10.8)


    could have been:


    • Mac OS 11

    • Mac OS 12

    • Mac OS 13

    • Mac OS 14

    • Mac OS 15

    • etc.


    Like I said, the early 3-4 might not have risen to the level of a whole new number (being mostly releases to get OS X up to par), but the later ones could have been considered whole new numbers.


    With that assumption, Apple has almost bastardized the naming/numbering scheme.


    As far as words (e.g., colors, cities, cats, etc.) for naming major think this doesn't have to lead to confusion. I think Apple created more confusion than necessary in their last four releases by giving them such similar names (i.e., Leopard > Snow Leopard and then Lion > Mountain Lion). You'd still have a specific version number to refer to for dealing with specific support related issues, etc.

  • Reply 104 of 108
    vorsosvorsos Posts: 302member

    On the other hand, Leopard to Snow Leopard and Lion to Mountain Lion is consistent with both the iPhone and Intel processor "tick-tock" naming convention; a leap followed by a refinement.


    Microsoft hasn't been a great example of OS version name consistency. Chronologically, Windows had numbers (3, 3.1), years (95, 98), letters (ME, NT, XP), Vista, and back to numbers, though IIRC Windows 7 and 8 are inconsistent with their respective NT kernel versions. Oh, and soon to be colors (Blue).

    To say nothing of the artificially handicapped SKUs of 21st century Windows versions (Home, Pro, Enterprise, Netbook/3rd World, Heart Gold, Soul Silver).


    But since I don't have a better idea in regards to Mac OS branding...

    For what it's worth, we're only one letter away from naming it after the kernel (Mach OS X).

  • Reply 105 of 108
    v5vv5v Posts: 1,357member


    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

    In other words, and this is why it seems (to me) that "OS X" has really become a name (the fact that they call it "OS X v10.8" is a hint here), the following (or at least maybe the last few):


    When Apple made the switch to Intel processors I wondered aloud whether they would take steps towards greater Windows compatibility and call the operating system OSXP.

  • Reply 106 of 108

    I'd like to submit the name OSX Pallas. It's the cutest cat on earth imo and sounds luxurious as any Apple product ought to. Here's the cat.

  • Reply 107 of 108
    eluardeluard Posts: 319member

    It really should be Sabre-Tooth. As has been said there is no way to top that and it comes as a culmination of the whole OS X naming scheme. After that they should — and I think will — move to OS XI, and a new naming scheme.

  • Reply 108 of 108
    v5vv5v Posts: 1,357member


    Originally Posted by gregord View Post

    [...] Again, people do not really care about OS version numbers.


    I think version numbers are absolutely essential. How else do you check compatibility before buying new software or hardware or updating existing software? If you've ever purchased a software update then discovered that it required an OS upgrade, and that OS required a hardware upgrade, you learn to read the system requirements first.

Sign In or Register to comment.