Tiger and Longhorn names....

Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
I wonder if anyone else has noticed this...



We all know that Apple likes to name its OS after big cats (Tiger, Panther etc.), which makes sense. They give OSX an image of power, sleekness, beauty.



So I got to wondering what Microsoft were trying to say when they named the new version of Windows "Longhorn". I had never heard this word before, so I looked it up on Google. Well here it is - and it's surprisingly honest. What attributes of this animal do you think are appropriate to windows?



http://www.tlbaa.org/



«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 22
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mr Skills

    I wonder if anyone else has noticed this...



    We all know that Apple likes to name its OS after big cats (Tiger, Panther etc.), which makes sense. They give OSX an image of power, sleekness, beauty.



    So I got to wondering what Microsoft were trying to say when they named the new version of Windows "Longhorn". I had never heard this word before, so I looked it up on Google. Well here it is - and it's surprisingly honest. What attributes of this animal do you think are appropriate to windows?



    http://www.tlbaa.org/







    that is bullshit (pun intended) M$ names all OSs prebuilds after mountains in Washington state
  • Reply 2 of 22




    Spoil my fun why don't you!
  • Reply 3 of 22
    chris vchris v Posts: 460member
    Well, in Texas, a Longhorn is a big, dumb cow. Seems about right to me.
  • Reply 4 of 22
    I dunno, this cat routine is getting old. I'd like to see the return of cool names. Also, it's profoundly stupid that the slowest version of OS X was called "Cheetah," Apple should have used Tiger for that one, slow but powerful.
  • Reply 5 of 22
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg

    I dunno, this cat routine is getting old. I'd like to see the return of cool names. Also, it's profoundly stupid that the slowest version of OS X was called "Cheetah," Apple should have used Tiger for that one, slow but powerful.



    i was under the impression that os x names have been: puma, jaguar, panther. so theyre holding off to use cheetah.
  • Reply 6 of 22
    1. Cheetah 10.0

    2. Puma 10.1

    3. Jaguar 10.2

    4. Panther 10.3

    5. Tiger 10.4
  • Reply 7 of 22
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gene Clean

    1. Cheetah 10.0

    2. Puma 10.1

    3. Jaguar 10.2

    4. Panther 10.3

    5. Tiger 10.4




    ah the .0
  • Reply 8 of 22
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by a_greer

    that is bullshit (pun intended) M$ names all OSs prebuilds after mountains in Washington state



    BZZZZZZZZZT.



    http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/m...es/000986.html



    Nor is Whistler in WA. It's in BC. Big skiing resort.



    Sheesh. Flatlanders.



  • Reply 9 of 22
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Yes, the Microsoft crowd are a bunch of pampered snow bunnies.



    Apple did actually use codenames fpr their post-10.2 builds to different kinds of wine (merlot, pinot, etc.). However, once the marketing department realized that Mac users were referring to the early OS X releases by their internal codenames, Cheetah (10.0), Puma (10.1) and Jaguar (10.2), they decided to capitalize on this, made the "Jaguar" name more prominent, and changed all the future releases to cat names instead of the wines. I liked the wine codenames myself.
  • Reply 10 of 22
    How about the devils horn in your side ...
  • Reply 11 of 22
    nebagakidnebagakid Posts: 2,692member
    how many cool big cat names are there left?
  • Reply 12 of 22
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BuonRotto

    Yes, the Microsoft crowd are a bunch of pampered snow bunnies.



    Apple did actually use codenames fpr their post-10.2 builds to different kinds of wine (merlot, pinot, etc.). However, once the marketing department realized that Mac users were referring to the early OS X releases by their internal codenames, Cheetah (10.0), Puma (10.1) and Jaguar (10.2), they decided to capitalize on this, made the "Jaguar" name more prominent, and changed all the future releases to cat names instead of the wines. I liked the wine codenames myself.




    Two things...first, I thought the wine code names were being used for interim releases (e.g., 10.3.7). I probably have that wrong, but thought I heard that once.



    Second, it is not unlikely that Apple uses internal code names and external code names as well.



    EDIT: No wait, I'm wrong...for interim releases (bug fixes) they were using colors (e.g. red, green, pink, blue, etc.) But I do think that the wine code names might have been internal...while still using the cat names externally.

  • Reply 13 of 22
    bergzbergz Posts: 1,045member
    I don't know how accurate theapplemuseum.com is, but this is what they say:



    Quote:

    MacOS X

    MacOS X: Cyan, Siam

    MacOS X Public Beta: Kodiak

    MacOS X 10.0: Cheetah

    MacOS X 10.1: Puma

    MacOS X 10.2: Jaguar

    MacOS X 10.2.1: Jaguar Red

    MacOS X 10.2.2: Jaguar Blue, Merlot

    MacOS X 10.2.3: Jaguar Green

    MacOS X 10.2.4: Jaguar Pink

    MacOS X 10.2.5: Jaguar Plaid

    MacOS X 10.2.6: Jaguar Black

    MacOS X 10.2.7 for Power Macintosh G5: Smeagol

    MacOS X 10.2.7 for PowerBook G4: Blackrider

    MacOS X 10.3 early developement: Pinot

    MacOS X 10.3: Panther

    MacOS X 10.4 early developement: Merlot

    MacOS X 10.4: Tiger



  • Reply 14 of 22
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    I wish apple hadn't marketed 10.x by their code names.



    People frequently get confused. Which is newer, jaguar or panther? People frequently mis-speak and switch the code names because the names aren't self descriptive.



    If a friend or co-worker comes to me for support on jaguar or panther, I always confirm the version by asking them to specify 10.2 or 10.3. Too often, they simply switch the two.



    Using names like 10.2 and 10.3, there is no confusion. In fact, that is the entire purpose of version numbers in the first place. Somebody should remind apple marketing of this... I'm sure their customer service people are already well aware of the frequent confusion.
  • Reply 15 of 22
    kishankishan Posts: 732member
    Perhaps this is the wrong thread for this post, if so I apologize. The last Mac OS I used was whatever was shipping on Macs in about 1992. Since then I have been using various versions of Windows. Is there anyplace on the web or in these forums where I can read about the various Mac OS's and what changed between them?



    Just to throw this out there. Even though windows SP2 is imperfect in its execution of its stated goals, I did get to download it for free. MSoft's updates to existing operating systems (in this case WinXP) are free to download and have been insofar as I can remember with Windows post Win95. Upgrades (from Win98 to WinXP) have had to be bought. Has Apple followed this same scheme? Where does the Panther --> Tiger update/upgrade fit into all this? Which is it, an update or an upgrade? Why should Apple insist on making people pay for what superficially looks like an update according to the numbering scheme?
  • Reply 16 of 22
    fahlmanfahlman Posts: 696member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by dfiler

    I wish apple hadn't marketed 10.x by their code names.



    People frequently get confused. Which is newer, jaguar or panther? People frequently mis-speak and switch the code names because the names aren't self descriptive.



    If a friend or co-worker comes to me for support on jaguar or panther, I always confirm the version by asking them to specify 10.2 or 10.3. Too often, they simply switch the two.



    Using names like 10.2 and 10.3, there is no confusion. In fact, that is the entire purpose of version numbers in the first place. Somebody should remind apple marketing of this... I'm sure their customer service people are already well aware of the frequent confusion.




    Marketing people are the ones who decided that 10.X didn't sound... uh... marketable. Jaguar, Panther and Tiger are much more marketable.
  • Reply 17 of 22
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kishan

    Just to throw this out there. Even though windows SP2 is imperfect in its execution of its stated goals, I did get to download it for free. MSoft's updates to existing operating systems (in this case WinXP) are free to download and have been insofar as I can remember with Windows post Win95. Upgrades (from Win98 to WinXP) have had to be bought. Has Apple followed this same scheme? Where does the Panther --> Tiger update/upgrade fit into all this? Which is it, an update or an upgrade? Why should Apple insist on making people pay for what superficially looks like an update according to the numbering scheme?



    10.3 -> 10.4 is an upgrade, not an update, it's like going from Win2K to XP. The update would be 10.3 -> 10.3.1. You have to look at all of the third dots the same way you look at Windows Service Packs, so far we've gone from 10.3.0 -> 10.3.1 -> 10.3.2 -> ... -> 10.3.7 (with 10.3.8 on the way). That's like getting WinXP Sp1, SP2, SP3...SP7.

    Windows numbers things pretty much the same way, though less consistantly. Windows NT 3.51 -> Windows NT 4 -> Windows 2000 (NT 5) ->Windows XP (NT 5.1) -> Windows XP SP2 (NT 5.1.2)

    Go to a command prompt and type ver to see for your self.

    About as clear as mud, but MS is getting a little better about it these days.

    At least Apple is consistant with it.



    Anyway, with both, you pay for the .x change and get the .x.x for free.
  • Reply 18 of 22
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Kishan

    Is there anyplace on the web or in these forums where I can read about the various Mac OS's and what changed between them?



    Well, things have changed a whole bunch since 1992! Here's a quick Google link.



    The Mac OS you used in 1992 was System 7.x and that was the basis for Mac OS 8 and 9 that shipped on Macs until only recently. Without getting into details, Mac OS X shipped in 2001 and is a totally different animal under the hood. Apple bought Steve Jobs' company, NeXT Computers, and developed the current OS from that, and mixed in a bit of the old OS to ease the transition. The new OS is based on unix, uses a new graphics model, new UI, etc.



    Quote:

    Where does the Panther --> Tiger update/upgrade fit into all this? Which is it, an update or an upgrade?



    The Panther > Tiger transition is an upgrade, not an update per se. Windows SP2 is somewhat akin to the incremental updates we've gotten for Panther, i.e., 10.3.1, 10.3.2, up to 10.3.7. These are free updates. Apple releases more minro updates more frequently, and MS makes fewer but bigger updates. A more appropriate parallel is to say that Panther : Tiger as XP : Longhorn.
  • Reply 19 of 22
    kishankishan Posts: 732member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BuonRotto

    Well, things have changed a whole bunch since 1992! Here's a quick Google link.



    The Mac OS you used in 1992 was System 7.x and that was the basis for Mac OS 8 and 9 that shipped on Macs until only recently. Without getting into details, Mac OS X shipped in 2001 and is a totally different animal under the hood. Apple bought Steve Jobs' company, NeXT Computers, and developed the current OS from that, and mixed in a bit of the old OS to ease the transition. The new OS is based on unix, uses a new graphics model, new UI, etc.



    The Panther > Tiger transition is an upgrade, not an update per se. Windows SP2 is somewhat akin to the incremental updates we've gotten for Panther, i.e., 10.3.1, 10.3.2, up to 10.3.7. These are free updates. Apple releases more minro updates more frequently, and MS makes fewer but bigger updates. A more appropriate parallel is to say that Panther : Tiger as XP : Longhorn.




    Thanks for the link. It made for informative reading. So if I understand correctly, the OS X.x.x designation would refer to anything based on the same Unix kernel. This would be akin to how Win3.1 through WinME were all essentially DOS based systems and part of the same "family". With Win2000 and WinXP running a different kernel altogether, they could be considered to constitute a whole other lineage.



    For the moment I need to draw such comparisons because I have begrudgingly had to use Windows for such a long time since the old Mac IIsi that was the last Mac I ever used (I was 13 at the time, my dad decided to get an IBM 486 based machine in 1994).



    What else is out there beyond OS X? After browsing these forums for nearly a year now, it seems that many mac users find OS X to be a panacea in the computer world. Has anything been floated about a possible successor? I likely will not be able to get back into mac until late in 2006 when I finish medical school. Do you think that an OS XI might be shipping at that point?
  • Reply 20 of 22
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Apple's trying to milk the OS X thing for as long as possible. They were in limbo with the development of the new OS for so long, they're really trying to emphasize a clear course. By 2006, we'll probably be talking about OS X 10.5 [fill-in-the-cat-name]. We probably own't be talking about OS 11/XI until at least 2010, if not later than that. The idea is that OS X's architecture is supposed to carry them for the next 10-15 years.



    As far as other operatng systems, there are of course other unix distributions out there, FreeBSD, NetBSD, etc. which are not really consumer-oriented. The unix-like OS Linux has a strong following, and they're supported by companies like IBM, but it also is finding the path to consumer-readiness to be long and difficult. There are still Amiga fans out there, and some people are trying to get that OS on its feet again and into the 21st century. The world of desktop operating systems can basically be split into the unix crowd -- including OS X, Sun's Solaris OS and Linux (which technically isn't a unix, just really similar) -- and Windows. Of course, we can start talking about appliance and OEM operating systems, like what your cell phone iPod or microwave uses, but they're much more numerous and limited in scope.
Sign In or Register to comment.