I don't want Windows, however OS X Server has had some serious issues going back to 10.7. It has gotten better but learning network administration with Server was extremely difficult. There was always a balance of what did I screw up and what did Server screw up. Spend some time on the Apple discussion boards to see what I mean.
If switching to MS network standards means increased network stability then sign me up!
Fix the issues with the OS X Server tools / protocols. No need to confuse stuff with the weird MS crap.
Fix the issues with the OS X Server tools / protocols. No need to confuse stuff with the weird MS crap.
Hard to argue that but it has been three years now and server is only marginally better. I hate to say it but I don't think I could recommend a business to use it as a platform.
I don't want Windows, however OS X Server has had some serious issues going back to 10.7. It has gotten better but learning network administration with Server was extremely difficult. There was always a balance of what did I screw up and what did Server screw up. Spend some time on the Apple discussion boards to see what I mean.
If switching to MS network standards means increased network stability then sign me up!
However much I love OS X, I must say it seems like OS X Server is stuck in Apple's hobby section as far as I can tell.
They might go back to Mac OS X. It was Mac OS X, then OS X. They could rename it Mac OS X. I doubt they will, after 15 years, change the name from OS X to macOS (or macOS X or macOS 10). Too much existing branding involved I would think.
Also iOS was originally iPhone OS.
Um-m-m-m,. no. iOS was originally called OS X 10.5. It predated MacOS X 10.5 by several months.
OS X has become a brand. I will be very surprised if Apple ever changes the name to OS XI, or OS 11 unless they introduce a radically different operating system. Perhaps if something replaces unix as the underlying operating system...
The case against a change in the name of OS X is actually much stronger than the point that you made. Consider this:
Although Apple calls its full-featured computer operating system "OS X," the most prominent promotional element of the name is the "X"--not "Mac," not "OS," just the big uppercase "X." Switching to an "11" would not have the same impact. With the switch from species of cats and cat-like animals to the names of California locations, Apple greatly de-emphasized the version numbers of its OS. OS X 10.9 was OS X Mavericks. OS X 10.10 is OS X Yosemite. OS X 10.11 will be OS X El Capitan. With each new version of OS X, its Arabic numeral version number is de-emphasized ever more.
Make no mistake. The name of Apple's full-featured computer OS is just a name. Apple can change it to anything it wants whenever it wants for whatever reason. However, no reason to change the name outweighs the market power of "OS X" as a brand. Apple pretends that the "X" is the Roman numeral version of "ten." This is clearly a fiction. Let us pretend that the "X" honors Unix. Beginning with OS X 10.5, OS X graduated from POSIX-compliant to Certified UNIX 03. Apple has become the de facto custodian of UNIX.
Apple has scaled its UNIX-based OS to power the Apple Watch, iPhone, iPad, Apple TV, and Macintosh computers. If Apple were to change its OS, then it would change the OS on all of its computing platforms. What would it change to? Outside Microsoft, the competition uses distributions of Linux, a Unix-workalike. It would make no sense to switch from genuine UNIX to a Unix-workalike when you have decades of experience now with genuine UNIX. There is nothing on the horizon to replace Unix and Unix-like systems.
Since OS X 10.11 has already been announced I’m seriously doubting it. And there are plenty of California landmarks to choose from for naming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me
[snip]
Apple has scaled its UNIX-based OS to power the Apple Watch, iPhone, iPad, Apple TV, and Macintosh computers. If Apple were to change its OS, then it would change the OS on all of its computing platforms. What would it change to? Outside Microsoft, the competition uses distributions of Linux, a Unix-workalike. It would make no sense to switch from genuine UNIX to a Unix-workalike when you have decades of experience now with genuine UNIX. There is nothing on the horizon to replace Unix and Unix-like systems.
Um-m-m-m,. no. iOS was originally called OS X 10.5. It predated MacOS X 10.5 by several months.
The case against a change in the name of OS X is actually much stronger than the point that you made. Consider this:
Um-m-m-m. Yes. Before it became iOS, it was called iPhoneOS. When the iPad came out, it was renamed iOS. iOS was never called OS X 10.5. Now, Apple did say that iPhoneOS had OS X as its base (or that the original iPhone ran a version of OS X), and also said Mac OS X had OS X as its base (before Mac OS X became OS X)
As a long time former DECcie I think that would be awesome personally, as long as the desktop interface was updated. Not that I'd give up OS X. But VMS (OpenVMS in later versions) was an awesome OS.
Um-m-m-m. Yes. Before it became iOS, it was called iPhoneOS. When the iPad came out, it was renamed iOS. iOS was never called OS X 10.5. Now, Apple did say that iPhoneOS had OS X as its base (or that the original iPhone ran a version of OS X), and also said Mac OS X had OS X as its base (before Mac OS X became OS X)
Overview
Apple's iOS did not have an official name until the release of the iPhone software development kit (iPhone SDK) on March 6, 2008. Before then, Apple marketing literature simply stated that their iPhone runs a version of OS X, a reference to iOS' parent operating system.[1] When introduced, it was named iPhone OS. It was renamed iOS on June 7, 2010, as, with the introduction of the iPad as well as the existence of the iPod Touch, the iPhone was no longer the only device to run the mobile operating system. iOS 4 was the first major release to reflect this change.[2] Apple licensed the "iOS" trademark from Cisco.[3]
I see that some of us do not read or read with comprehension:
And that would be you. I specifically said: "Now, Apple did say that iPhoneOS had OS X as its base (or that the original iPhone ran a version of OS X)" in my original post. See the part in parentheses?
You claimed it was not called iPhoneOS. I showed you it was. You said it was called OS X 10.5. It was not. It was just "some version of OS X" (not Mac OS X -- at the time there was a distinction).
And that would be you. I specifically said: "Now, Apple did say that iPhoneOS had OS X as its base (or that the original iPhone ran a version of OS X)" in my original post. See the part in parentheses?
You claimed it was not called iPhoneOS. I showed you it was. You said it was called OS X 10.5. It was not. It was just "some version of OS X" (not Mac OS X -- at the time there was a distinction).
I will not get into an argument with you. Your Wikipedia page clearly says that iOS did not become iPhone OS until 2008, the year after the iPhone went on sale. The site also said that the iPhone was run by "some version of OS X." That was not a quote from Apple. Apple specified that the iPhone ran OS X 10.5. A subtle point that you are clearly missing is that in 2007 and earlier, Apple always referred to Mac OS X as "MacOS X" or "MacOS X" followed by its version number in Arabic numerals. Although "OS X" was commonly used to reference the OS on Internet fan sites like this one, the first time that Apple used the term "OS X" was in 2007 with respect to the OS that powered the iPhone. Apple referred to the iPhone's OS as "OS X 10.5." When Apple's Certified UNIX 03-based OS came to market in October 2007, it was named "MacOS X 10.5" in keeping with previous practice. Until Apple coined the name "iPhone OS," the iPhone's operating system was not a version of OS X, it was the version of OS X.
You have a choice to make. You may drop the issue. If you choose to continue, then you may do so in the knowledge that nothing on the Internet really disappears. Perhaps tonight or perhaps later, I will find Apple's promotional materials for the original iPhone including the clear reference to "OS X 10.5." You may avoid the ensuing embarrassment or you may embrace it. The choice it yours.
A taste of what is to come: technical specifications on Apple's support site for original iPhone.
I will not get into an argument with you. Your Wikipedia page clearly says that iOS did not become iPhone OS until 2008, the year after the iPhone went on sale. The site also said that the iPhone was run by "some version of OS X." That was not a quote from Apple. Apple specified that the iPhone ran OS X 10.5. A subtle point that you are clearly missing is that in 2007 and earlier, Apple always referred to Mac OS X as "MacOS X" or "MacOS X" followed by its version number in Arabic numerals. Although "OS X" was commonly used to reference the OS on Internet fan sites like this one, the first time that Apple used the term "OS X" was in 2007 with respect to the OS that powered the iPhone. Apple referred to the iPhone's OS as "OS X 10.5." When Apple's Certified UNIX 03-based OS came to market in October 2007, it was named "MacOS X 10.5" in keeping with previous practice. Until Apple coined the name "iPhone OS," the iPhone's operating system was not a version of OS X, it was the version of OS X.
You have a choice to make. You may drop the issue. If you choose to continue, then you may do so in the knowledge that nothing on the Internet really disappears. Perhaps tonight or perhaps later, I will find Apple's promotional materials for the original iPhone including the clear reference to "OS X 10.5." You may avoid the ensuing embarrassment or you may embrace it. The choice it yours.
There is no embarrassment except maybe on your side. Apple retroactively named (as there was no name in 2007) the OS running the iPhone to be iPhone OS starting with a 1.x. You have not provided any information that Apple ever said it was called OS X 10.5. I'd be interested to see any such documentation you may have, if any.
You also claimed that the first version of the OS running on the iPhone was not iPhone OS (or iPhoneOS), when it indeed was, even if the name came later than the release of the phone itself (was retroactively applied when they decided they needed a name to go with the new SDK).
It was NOT the OS X. Apple stated that it ran a version of OS X. I believe that Apple also said that Mac OS X was also a version of OS X. That may have been a comment at WWDC that year (which I attended, specifically to learn about the phone[2007]). The iPhones OS was not called OS X but Apple did say that the iPhone ran a version of OS X, which showed a commonality with the Mac. The idea was that Mac OS X was a more full version of OS X, as the Mac had much higher requirements than the phone did.
Comments
I don't want Windows, however OS X Server has had some serious issues going back to 10.7. It has gotten better but learning network administration with Server was extremely difficult. There was always a balance of what did I screw up and what did Server screw up. Spend some time on the Apple discussion boards to see what I mean.
If switching to MS network standards means increased network stability then sign me up!
Fix the issues with the OS X Server tools / protocols. No need to confuse stuff with the weird MS crap.
Fix the issues with the OS X Server tools / protocols. No need to confuse stuff with the weird MS crap.
Hard to argue that but it has been three years now and server is only marginally better. I hate to say it but I don't think I could recommend a business to use it as a platform.
However much I love OS X, I must say it seems like OS X Server is stuck in Apple's hobby section as far as I can tell.
Since about 10.7 this seems to have been the case, which is around when they abandoned the Xserve and told everyone to use Mac Minis instead...
The case against a change in the name of OS X is actually much stronger than the point that you made. Consider this:
Although Apple calls its full-featured computer operating system "OS X," the most prominent promotional element of the name is the "X"--not "Mac," not "OS," just the big uppercase "X." Switching to an "11" would not have the same impact. With the switch from species of cats and cat-like animals to the names of California locations, Apple greatly de-emphasized the version numbers of its OS. OS X 10.9 was OS X Mavericks. OS X 10.10 is OS X Yosemite. OS X 10.11 will be OS X El Capitan. With each new version of OS X, its Arabic numeral version number is de-emphasized ever more.
Make no mistake. The name of Apple's full-featured computer OS is just a name. Apple can change it to anything it wants whenever it wants for whatever reason. However, no reason to change the name outweighs the market power of "OS X" as a brand. Apple pretends that the "X" is the Roman numeral version of "ten." This is clearly a fiction. Let us pretend that the "X" honors Unix. Beginning with OS X 10.5, OS X graduated from POSIX-compliant to Certified UNIX 03. Apple has become the de facto custodian of UNIX.
Apple has scaled its UNIX-based OS to power the Apple Watch, iPhone, iPad, Apple TV, and Macintosh computers. If Apple were to change its OS, then it would change the OS on all of its computing platforms. What would it change to? Outside Microsoft, the competition uses distributions of Linux, a Unix-workalike. It would make no sense to switch from genuine UNIX to a Unix-workalike when you have decades of experience now with genuine UNIX. There is nothing on the horizon to replace Unix and Unix-like systems.
Since OS X 10.11 has already been announced I’m seriously doubting it. And there are plenty of California landmarks to choose from for naming.
[snip]
Apple has scaled its UNIX-based OS to power the Apple Watch, iPhone, iPad, Apple TV, and Macintosh computers. If Apple were to change its OS, then it would change the OS on all of its computing platforms. What would it change to? Outside Microsoft, the competition uses distributions of Linux, a Unix-workalike. It would make no sense to switch from genuine UNIX to a Unix-workalike when you have decades of experience now with genuine UNIX. There is nothing on the horizon to replace Unix and Unix-like systems.
2016 will be the year of OpenVMS on the desktop.
Um-m-m-m,. no. iOS was originally called OS X 10.5. It predated MacOS X 10.5 by several months.
The case against a change in the name of OS X is actually much stronger than the point that you made. Consider this:
Um-m-m-m. Yes. Before it became iOS, it was called iPhoneOS. When the iPad came out, it was renamed iOS. iOS was never called OS X 10.5. Now, Apple did say that iPhoneOS had OS X as its base (or that the original iPhone ran a version of OS X), and also said Mac OS X had OS X as its base (before Mac OS X became OS X)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_iOS
There are many many many references for this (iPhoneOS).
2016 will be the year of OpenVMS on the desktop.
As a long time former DECcie I think that would be awesome personally, as long as the desktop interface was updated. Not that I'd give up OS X. But VMS (OpenVMS in later versions) was an awesome OS.
I see that some of us do not read or read with comprehension:
I see that some of us do not read or read with comprehension:
And that would be you. I specifically said: "Now, Apple did say that iPhoneOS had OS X as its base (or that the original iPhone ran a version of OS X)" in my original post. See the part in parentheses?
You claimed it was not called iPhoneOS. I showed you it was. You said it was called OS X 10.5. It was not. It was just "some version of OS X" (not Mac OS X -- at the time there was a distinction).
You have a choice to make. You may drop the issue. If you choose to continue, then you may do so in the knowledge that nothing on the Internet really disappears. Perhaps tonight or perhaps later, I will find Apple's promotional materials for the original iPhone including the clear reference to "OS X 10.5." You may avoid the ensuing embarrassment or you may embrace it. The choice it yours.
A taste of what is to come: technical specifications on Apple's support site for original iPhone.
I will not get into an argument with you. Your Wikipedia page clearly says that iOS did not become iPhone OS until 2008, the year after the iPhone went on sale. The site also said that the iPhone was run by "some version of OS X." That was not a quote from Apple. Apple specified that the iPhone ran OS X 10.5. A subtle point that you are clearly missing is that in 2007 and earlier, Apple always referred to Mac OS X as "MacOS X" or "MacOS X" followed by its version number in Arabic numerals. Although "OS X" was commonly used to reference the OS on Internet fan sites like this one, the first time that Apple used the term "OS X" was in 2007 with respect to the OS that powered the iPhone. Apple referred to the iPhone's OS as "OS X 10.5." When Apple's Certified UNIX 03-based OS came to market in October 2007, it was named "MacOS X 10.5" in keeping with previous practice. Until Apple coined the name "iPhone OS," the iPhone's operating system was not a version of OS X, it was the version of OS X.
You have a choice to make. You may drop the issue. If you choose to continue, then you may do so in the knowledge that nothing on the Internet really disappears. Perhaps tonight or perhaps later, I will find Apple's promotional materials for the original iPhone including the clear reference to "OS X 10.5." You may avoid the ensuing embarrassment or you may embrace it. The choice it yours.
There is no embarrassment except maybe on your side. Apple retroactively named (as there was no name in 2007) the OS running the iPhone to be iPhone OS starting with a 1.x. You have not provided any information that Apple ever said it was called OS X 10.5. I'd be interested to see any such documentation you may have, if any.
You also claimed that the first version of the OS running on the iPhone was not iPhone OS (or iPhoneOS), when it indeed was, even if the name came later than the release of the phone itself (was retroactively applied when they decided they needed a name to go with the new SDK).
It was NOT the OS X. Apple stated that it ran a version of OS X. I believe that Apple also said that Mac OS X was also a version of OS X. That may have been a comment at WWDC that year (which I attended, specifically to learn about the phone[2007]). The iPhones OS was not called OS X but Apple did say that the iPhone ran a version of OS X, which showed a commonality with the Mac. The idea was that Mac OS X was a more full version of OS X, as the Mac had much higher requirements than the phone did.
2016 will be the year of OpenVMS on the desktop.
> As a long time former DECcie I think that would be awesome personally, as long as the desktop interface was updated. Not that I'd give
> up OS X. But VMS (OpenVMS in later versions) was an awesome OS.
Agreed. At some level I would like to see a wider variety of OSes in use.