I was against Apple's regular iPad line running MacOS because some people just want a simple device running iOS. But since we now have the Mini/Air line and the Pro line why not? Having the ability to run both iOS/MacOS would make the iPad Pro a game changer.
Can A-series chips run MacOS or does it need Intel chips? Or will A-10 chips be fast enough to run MacOS?
IMO we will see a MacOS iPad very soon.
That's quite a leap to an iPad Pro being able to run dual operating systems. The rumor of Apple dumping Intel on the Mac products has been circulating since the A7 64 bit introduction. The likelihood of it happening on the macs is poor because Intel not only does the processors but most of the supporting circuitry which cuts the costs for Apple.
However the computer interface continues to evolve. I have an 18 year old that has never used a laptop or desktop because her iPhone and iPad have been more than enough for her needs especially after Microsoft introduced the enhanced versions of Office. I'm guessing that there is an extremely high percentage of users like her. Of course iOS doesn't support app development or high end graphics apps like the Adobe Suite or AutoCAD and many others. Adding MacOS could help solve that. Could the A9x run MacOS? Absolutely. Does Apple want to support multiple versions or app developers want to do that I sincerely doubt it. When the laptop as we know it becomes obsolete you will see a new system arrive. Will it be iOS MacOS running dually? IMHO I think it will be a converged OS. The iPad Pro and iOS 9.3 is only the beginning. Look forward to 2018 is my guess.
The move from Mac OS to Mac OS X was a major leap in technology the first two versions where only for the brave. Mac OS X has had a great evolution and we have had a stable OS for a Macs for many years now. As the platform has expanded beyond hardcore fans to casual users Apple has softened the OS number designation towards real world objects (the cats) and now locations in California of natural beauty. Since updates are now on a yearly basis even die hard Apple fans like myself tend to forget if I am running Mavericks, or El Capitain especially since there are only minute visual changes with the interface. New versions of Mac OS X are always welcome but their significance does not really require the fanfare and perhaps renaming as it has in the past.
If Mac OS X is just changing it's name to something like Mac OS, I understand it from a marketing point of view. I would of course prefer the name change was due to something bigger like an OS re-built perhaps not from the ground up but perhaps foundation up. This is highly unlikely and most likely not necessary.
We must not forget Apple is a company like most that depends of marketing it products and services, naming or products is not taken lightly and must play nice with the larger frame of the brand. Mac OS X 10.11.4 is precise but not something the average person (who is the majority of Apple's customer's) will understand or really care about. A rebranding of the Mac OS may be long overdue.
Yes except that even if Apple were to rebrand OS X as Mac OS are you suggesting that Apple will also drop the version number? Or start the version number over? If that is the case I am against rebranding OS X. I do see a bit of a conflict in the way the version number works currently but I am okay with it.
This is a plausible and interesting rumor. The comments are entertaining. I think it is possible that it is an effort by Apple to get back to "it just works." They may drop the numbers and name designations from outward facing materials, and when one buys a mac, you just run "MacOS" and it updates and maintains itself. New features are added when they are ready, and it "just works."
It will be interesting to see if this plays out, as it gets complicated for user on occasion. Some software features require specific hardware, and a consumer might not like that to get something for free in the new software, they have to buy a new mac. But of course, it is entirely possible this is exactly what Apple intends.
The MacOS references have been around since the creation of OS X out of NeXTSTEP/OpenStep. It's developer nomenclature that has hung around. The company and all its development was adamant [I was there] that MacOS is dead and the future in all incarnations is OS X.
It really stands for Operating System Ex, not Operating System 10. It's the reason they have OS X 10.x.x instead of OS 10.10.x.x.
MacOS Is dead.
MacOS might be dead but macOS on the other hand.....
For a company like Apple with so many product groups, macOS sounds like a good idea to provide clarity for the customer.
I can see iOS devices growing in capability to becoming as powerful as macOS in many ways, but macOS and all its applications will never be touch optimized. Even Microsoft can't get developers to write touch-optimized apps for Windows 10. Even MS apps that have touch bolted on are not optimized for it. Old OS is tied to the past while iOS is heading toward a future that will optimized for a simpler interface and free of legacy thinking.
The problem with this is it's not that simple or really accurate. One could argue the MBA is better than the MB in every thing except display and weight. But it seems obvious that the MBP will probably shed weight and become the retina MBA everyone wanted while the MB will get faster and come down in price. And thr MBA will probably be phased out within the next 2 years.
With the iPhone, the SE is pretty much a 6S in a 5S body so in what way is the 6 better? If you want a bigger screen get the 6S or 6S Plus.
iPads are the most confusing of all. Both the mini 4 and Air 2 start at $399 for 16GB but the mini 4 offers a 128GB storage option; Air 2 does not. Why is that? What makes the Air 2 better than the mini 4? And if you ask someone which iPad Pro is the "best" how do they answer that question? The 12.9" model has 4GB RAM and faster USB 3 support but it's 9.7" sibling has a better display and camera.
Apple needs to make choices more simple. IMO Apple needs to get to a good, better, best lineup and then update those products every year or two or 18 months. Stop with the numbering scheme and stop keeping older models in the lineup just to hit a price point. If Apple can sell the iPhone SE for $399 than surely they could have axed the iPad mini 2 and reduced the price of the mini 4 to $299. Having two different iPad sizes selling for the same price is really odd.
Bottom line is Apple's lineup is not simple and straightforward like it could be. No, they won't be able to go back to Steve's 2x2 grid but things could be much simpler than they are now. But that would require a change in mindset from focusing on price points and margins to having a simple, clean lineup.
The MBA line is in transition or will end all together. I see no problem with it still being sold. It allows Apple to sell $899 laptops. What did you want Apple to do? Just cancel the MBA once the Macbook came out? How would that help? Then you would not have any sub $1000 Macbooks. I see nothing wrong with the Macbook lineup. Its not confusing at all.
How is the SE confusing? If you want a small screen you get the SE. If you want a bigger screen you get the 6s or 6. Why the hell is that so hard to understand? I swear some of you think Apple customers are idiots.
Sure it would be nice if Apple only did Good, Better, Best. But that's not realistic. Apple is introducing new products to adjust with the market. The Macbook is an example. So is the SE. So was the 6+. It would be stupid for Apple to simply stick to Good, Better, Best, without addressing other options and needs of the market such as screen size and device weight/thickness (Macbook). There is no one sized fit all device.
You are mostly grumbling about models that are in transition. The Mini4 will probably be gone soon. There really is no need for the mini and it is horrible on margins and profits. With the Plus phones the Mini line is a very niche product and just makes it hard for developers to make Apps that run nicely on both the Mini and 12.9 Pro.
You were the one that grouped things into good, better, best. I was explaining why the current product line doesn't fit into those categories. I agree that the MBA is on its way out. The SE is not confusing. But still selling the 6 and 6S is. If someone wants the bigger screen get the 6S or 6S Plus? Why would I pay more for a product that has older tech than its cheaper counterpart?
Apple is doomed if it's product decisions are about margins and profits. Make good products and the rest will take care of themselves. What I would do is get rid of the mini 2 and the Air 2 and have the mini 4 be the cheaper iPad (and get rid of the numbering sequence) and the Pro be the flagship device. Stop selling old models just to slot into a certain price point. As I said before if Apple can sell the SE for $399 they can sell the mini 4 for $299.
The MacOS references have been around since the creation of OS X out of NeXTSTEP/OpenStep. It's developer nomenclature that has hung around. The company and all its development was adamant [I was there] that MacOS is dead and the future in all incarnations is OS X.
It really stands for Operating System Ex, not Operating System 10. It's the reason they have OS X 10.x.x instead of OS 10.10.x.x.
MacOS Is dead.
Mac OS X did not stand for "Operating System Ex" as you like to say it. It was originally just Mac OS 10. They used the "X" as a marketing gimmick to make it seem so much bigger than just a version change (from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS 10). They knew they were putting Unix in it, a complete overhaul of the system itself. So, they went with the Roman numeral for 10 which is X. Then people started referring to it as Mac OX "Ex" (myself included), even though Steve kept referring to it as Mac OS 10.
Now, should they go away from the "X" that is there? I have no idea; I am a developer not a marketing person [in my best McCoy voice]! But it may be time to retire the 10-series and move forward with 11. My thinking is that it will not be this upcoming version, but the next one when they release iOS 11 (assuming in 2017), they may release MacOS 11 then as well. Just a thought.
why wouldn't it be macOS 12 instead of macOS 11. We currently have OS X(ten, not ex) version 11.4. If OS X is replaced by macOS, the proper version of the next major release would be 12.
The MacOS references have been around since the creation of OS X out of NeXTSTEP/OpenStep. It's developer nomenclature that has hung around. The company and all its development was adamant [I was there] that MacOS is dead and the future in all incarnations is OS X.
It really stands for Operating System Ex, not Operating System 10. It's the reason they have OS X 10.x.x instead of OS 10.10.x.x.
MacOS Is dead.
No, the X is pronounced 10. See the very first thing Steve says when he announced the OS. I've never heard anyone at apple pronounce it as anything besides "ten".
why wouldn't it be macOS 12 instead of macOS 11. We currently have OS X(ten, not ex) version 11.4. If OS X is replaced by macOS, the proper version of the next major release would be 12.
For a company like Apple with so many product groups, macOS sounds like a good idea to provide clarity for the customer.
Average Mac users don't know or even care what the name or version of their OS is. For most it is just a Mac. That's all they need to know. It is not at all like Windows where it is crucial to know because each successive version is without exception another unmitigated disaster that you'll want to avoid as long as possible.
Also, the name changed from MacOS X to OS X when the iPhone was released because Steve then said the iPhone ran on OS X (ten). I don't have to look that one up, I remember it from when it happened. And the original MacOS X was the successor to MacOS 9. There have now been 20 major releases of MacOS including the original in 1984.
why wouldn't it be macOS 12 instead of macOS 11. We currently have OS X(ten, not ex) version 11.4. If OS X is replaced by macOS, the proper version of the next major release would be 12.
If you wanted to be pedantic, the next release is the THIRTEENTH full release of OS X - since the initial release was v 10.0, not 1. So it would be 13 or 22, actually. Mac OS X 10.0 was the tenth release of Mac OS (previous to Mac OS 8 named just "System").
But they changed the name to indicate a new generation of OS, and gave that a restarted sub-numbering system.
I'm not sure what people are expecting in the next release that would be a generational changeover large enough to warrant a complete restart of the numbering scheme.
My hunch is that if they change the name, it will be macOS 10.12.
There have now been 20 major releases of MacOS including the original in 1984.
21, if 10.0 counts (the Public Beta, however, shouldn't).
Though prior to System 6, the releases weren't as hard-and-fast tied to major version numbers, as far as I know. (I didn't get started on Macintosh until System 6, in 1989.)
System 7 was the first one they ever marketed the hell out of a release number for.
Comments
However the computer interface continues to evolve. I have an 18 year old that has never used a laptop or desktop because her iPhone and iPad have been more than enough for her needs especially after Microsoft introduced the enhanced versions of Office. I'm guessing that there is an extremely high percentage of users like her. Of course iOS doesn't support app development or high end graphics apps like the Adobe Suite or AutoCAD and many others. Adding MacOS could help solve that. Could the A9x run MacOS? Absolutely. Does Apple want to support multiple versions or app developers want to do that I sincerely doubt it. When the laptop as we know it becomes obsolete you will see a new system arrive. Will it be iOS MacOS running dually? IMHO I think it will be a converged OS. The iPad Pro and iOS 9.3 is only the beginning. Look forward to 2018 is my guess.
It will be interesting to see if this plays out, as it gets complicated for user on occasion. Some software features require specific hardware, and a consumer might not like that to get something for free in the new software, they have to buy a new mac. But of course, it is entirely possible this is exactly what Apple intends.
I can see iOS devices growing in capability to becoming as powerful as macOS in many ways, but macOS and all its applications will never be touch optimized. Even Microsoft can't get developers to write touch-optimized apps for Windows 10. Even MS apps that have touch bolted on are not optimized for it. Old OS is tied to the past while iOS is heading toward a future that will optimized for a simpler interface and free of legacy thinking.
You were the one that grouped things into good, better, best. I was explaining why the current product line doesn't fit into those categories. I agree that the MBA is on its way out. The SE is not confusing. But still selling the 6 and 6S is. If someone wants the bigger screen get the 6S or 6S Plus? Why would I pay more for a product that has older tech than its cheaper counterpart?
Apple is doomed if it's product decisions are about margins and profits. Make good products and the rest will take care of themselves. What I would do is get rid of the mini 2 and the Air 2 and have the mini 4 be the cheaper iPad (and get rid of the numbering sequence) and the Pro be the flagship device. Stop selling old models just to slot into a certain price point. As I said before if Apple can sell the SE for $399 they can sell the mini 4 for $299.
Now, should they go away from the "X" that is there? I have no idea; I am a developer not a marketing person [in my best McCoy voice]! But it may be time to retire the 10-series and move forward with 11. My thinking is that it will not be this upcoming version, but the next one when they release iOS 11 (assuming in 2017), they may release MacOS 11 then as well. Just a thought.
So it would be 13 or 22, actually. Mac OS X 10.0 was the tenth release of Mac OS (previous to Mac OS 8 named just "System").
But they changed the name to indicate a new generation of OS, and gave that a restarted sub-numbering system.
I'm not sure what people are expecting in the next release that would be a generational changeover large enough to warrant a complete restart of the numbering scheme.
My hunch is that if they change the name, it will be macOS 10.12.
Though prior to System 6, the releases weren't as hard-and-fast tied to major version numbers, as far as I know. (I didn't get started on Macintosh until System 6, in 1989.)
System 7 was the first one they ever marketed the hell out of a release number for.