What should the next version of Mac OS should be called?

shatteringglassshatteringglass
Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
What will happen after OS X? Apple will eventually have to stop the OS X 10.x naming scheme someday, and Mac OS 11 (or XI) just doesn't sound that revolutionary or cool. Maybe they can just drop the version number from the OS name. Here are a few suggestion on what Apple should call the future Mac OS:



-Macintosh Intelligence (a la the Newton)

-Macintosh Logic System (like in 2001: a space odyssey)
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 26
    macmattmacmatt Posts: 91member
    iSys
  • Reply 2 of 26
    cubedudecubedude Posts: 1,556member
    Mac OS Xsquared, but not with a word, more like something you'd see in Algebra.
  • Reply 3 of 26
    hobbeshobbes Posts: 1,252member
    Believe it or not, I'm beginning to entertain the notion that "X" (10) will transition to the letter "X".



    So the next major version of OS X will be called Mac OS X v.2 ("Mac OS Ex 2)". Then Mac OS X v.3, and so on.



    Why?



    1. The 10/X thing is too confusing. Everyone I meet who isn't a Macophile pronounces it "Mac OS Ex".

    2. XServe ("Ex-Serve") points the way.

    3. 11-12-13 is tiresome.

    4. 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 is too minimal and tiny-sounding.

    5. Let's face it, this a 1.x version of an OS. They didn't want to acknowledge that. But 2.0 is more acceptable.
  • Reply 4 of 26
    satchmosatchmo Posts: 2,699member
    Since much of it roots are borrowed from Steve Jobs' previous company...how about,



    Mac OS neXt



    Kind of corny but...you still get the "ten" in there as well as the concept that it's the future of OS's.
  • Reply 5 of 26
    masterzeusmasterzeus Posts: 111member
    How about Mac OS ex eye ( written XI ). I think that sounds kinda cool. Unfortunately, minor releases don't sound so cool this way ( Mac OS ex eye dot one ). I also like Hobbes idea Mac OS X v.2 ( pronounced: mac os ex v two ).
  • Reply 6 of 26
    leonisleonis Posts: 3,427member
    Mac OS XP
  • Reply 7 of 26
    bluejekyllbluejekyll Posts: 103member
    Well I think Apple needs to keep the X in the name. It's reminiscent of Unix, every Unix I know of has an X in it's name (with the exception of Tru64, which is just going to be merged with HPUX anyway, so I guess that won't be an exception anymore).



    I like the whole Mac OS X v.2, but I think thy could also go the silent-X route, i.e. Mac OS X 11 would be pronounced Mac OS 11, but be written as Mac OS X 11.



    I kinda also like what's going on in another thread to, the Should OS X upgrade cost anything, Mac OS X: Jaguar. I think that would be cool.



    [ 06-21-2002: Message edited by: BlueJekyll ]</p>
  • Reply 8 of 26
    masterzeusmasterzeus Posts: 111member
    [quote]Originally posted by BlueJekyll:

    <strong>Mac OS X: Jaguar.

    [ 06-21-2002: Message edited by: BlueJekyll ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I didn't read the other thread or have time right now, but if they used this name, how do they denote incremental updates? Mac OS X: Jaguar.1? I have to admit it does sound cool, but not very practical.
  • Reply 9 of 26
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    [quote]I didn't read the other thread or have time right now, but if they used this name, how do they denote incremental updates? Mac OS X: Jaguar.1?<hr></blockquote>



    Just release editions like the Windows9x line used to.



    MacOSX: Jaguar Second Edition



    It's all fantasy because I'm sure Apple isn't going to do it, but it would be cool and original.



    I hear so many idiots say "Oh Ess Ex" anyway what difference would it make? Just call it "Jaguar" by itself, no MacOSX, nothing, just "Jaguar".
  • Reply 10 of 26
    rogue27rogue27 Posts: 607member
    I think they'll eventually drop the "Mac" from the name and just go with OS X and maybe OS X2, etc.
  • Reply 11 of 26
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    [quote]Originally posted by groverat:

    <strong>

    Just release editions like the Windows9x line used to.



    ... but it would be cool and original.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Uh... original?



    Not only that, but the whole funky name and build number mess MS promotes is HELL to track from a tech point of view.



    Let's stick to the standard, and logical, X.Y.Z, where:



    X = major release (change in underlying code, major new features)

    Y = minor release (minor new features)

    X = bug fix release (really minor new features, if any, mostly just bug fixes)
  • Reply 12 of 26
    bobthetomatobobthetomato Posts: 665member
    OS X 2003

    release a new one every couple of years



    Actually I think Mac OS X Jaguar is more evocative than Mac OS 10.2 . Bring on the big cat names!
  • Reply 13 of 26
    bartobarto Posts: 2,246member
    [quote]Originally posted by Hobbes:

    <strong>Believe it or not, I'm beginning to entertain the notion that "X" (10) will transition to the letter "X".



    So the next major version of OS X will be called Mac OS X v.2 ("Mac OS Ex 2)". Then Mac OS X v.3, and so on.



    Why?



    1. The 10/X thing is too confusing. Everyone I meet who isn't a Macophile pronounces it "Mac OS Ex".

    2. XServe ("Ex-Serve") points the way.

    3. 11-12-13 is tiresome.

    4. 10.1, 10.2, 10.3 is too minimal and tiny-sounding.

    5. Let's face it, this a 1.x version of an OS. They didn't want to acknowledge that. But 2.0 is more acceptable.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Agreed



    As far as a Mac OS XI (The next NeXT gen OS ), thats probably 5-10 years in the future. So lets not worry about that now.



    Barto
  • Reply 14 of 26
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    Mac OS XX



    and then my personal fav



    Mac OS XXX



  • Reply 15 of 26
    ducasiducasi Posts: 27member
    [quote]Originally posted by BlueJekyll:

    <strong>Well I think Apple needs to keep the X in the name. It's reminiscent of Unix, every Unix I know of has an X in it's name</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I guess you don't know many types of Unix then...



    Solaris is the most obvious exception, but there are the BSDs... BSDI, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and also SCO's unix, now called Open Server. And don't forget Darwin!



    Back on topic...



    i think the name "Mac OS X" has plenty of like in it, but when Apple are ready to move on, I would expect the next major revision to be called Mac OS.



    And why not?



    [ 06-22-2002: Message edited by: ducasi ]</p>
  • Reply 16 of 26
    existenzexistenz Posts: 57member
    [quote]Originally posted by shatteringglass:

    <strong>

    -Macintosh Logic System (like in 2001: a space odyssey)</strong><hr></blockquote>



    That name.....it is.....perfect!
  • Reply 17 of 26
    nicholas greconicholas greco Posts: 19member
    Hi,



    As a relatively new mac user, I always called is "oh es ex," which I thought was much cooler than "ten." I vote for the big cat names. The only problem would be knowing sequences of releases. Internal numbering maybe, or something? I'm just putting stuff out here, not really thinking.



    Thanks,

    Nicholas
  • Reply 18 of 26
    bobthetomatobobthetomato Posts: 665member
    Mac OS "All Your Base are belong to us"
  • Reply 19 of 26
    rraburrabu Posts: 264member
    Mac OS X plus

    Mac OS X (service pack 6)

    Mac OS X 2004



  • Reply 20 of 26
    dany lefebvredany lefebvre Posts: 1member
    How about Mac OS X-L? Because this OS is getting kind of X-Large...
Sign In or Register to comment.