It does not matter what they call macOS. The core of macOS is still Mac OS X with UNIX underpinnings. They can slap all the eye-candy they want on it, it is still the same UNIX system. It is still the same operating system no matter what CPU it runs on...and now three...PowerPC, Intel, and Apple Chip. Can boot up Leopard on my Power Mac G5 and it is not that much different from Big Sur on Intel. Except Big Sur still has more bugs in it that Apple has yet to fix. So I guess they are scrapping that and will just move on to macOS 12.
Apparently I'm along in this reasoning, but I'd really rather than stuck with macOS 11.x for a few more years. Absolutely not as long as they did OS X, but my rationale is that macOS 11 was a big under-the-hood (as well as user-facing) redesign, and I would prefer several years of polish and bug-fixing before a major update came out.
We are at present on 11.2.3 as I write this -- this fall would be a good time to introduce macOS 11.3 (let's say), followed the next year by 11.4 and so forth until we get to (again, just plucking a number) 11.7 or thereabouts, where all major issues are resolved and everything is working smoothly for 99.8 percent of users, and it becomes time to incorporate major technological changes -- that's when you bring out macOS 12.
I don't want Apple to follow the path of the idiots in charge of numbering at Firefox and Chrome (versions ***87*** and ***89***, respectively, with ".x" updates coming every week or so). Previously, each major number change for the Mac marked a truly significant change in both the underpinnings and the user interface. OS 9 was a huge improvement on OS 8, which in turn was a giant leap forward from OS 7.
Maybe Apple, now free to design for their Mx chips, have something truly worthy of a full-number upgrade from macOS 11, but I kinda doubt it. I guess we'll find out in June.
Kind of sick of the California names. Time for something new, or just plain old numbers again.
Apple is in California. They can choose whatever names they want. What would you prefer, Longhorn?
But Apple sells Macs all over the world. “El Capitan” means “the captain” in Spanish. That’s all I think of when I see that name. I don’t think “hey that’s that random location in California no one knows about!”
Like I said something more international like “London”, “Tokyo” would have been cooler not “Mavericks”.
When Craig joked and said “Mac OS Sea Lion?” I actually thought it was light hearted and funny. But then he said “Mavericks” and I couldn’t believe how shi**y the name was especially compared to big cats.
Kind of sick of the California names. Time for something new, or just plain old numbers again.
Apple is in California. They can choose whatever names they want. What would you prefer, Longhorn?
But Apple sells Macs all over the world. “El Capitan” means “the captain” in Spanish. That’s all I think of when I see that name. I don’t think “hey that’s that random location in California no one knows about!”
Like I said something more international like “London”, “Tokyo” would have been cooler not “Mavericks”.
When Craig joked and said “Mac OS Sea Lion?” I actually thought it was light hearted and funny. But then he said “Mavericks” and I couldn’t believe how shi**y the name was especially compared to big cats.
Mavericks is an impressive natural break off the coast of CA. The world of marketing has uses popular big city names countless times. That's fine if MS or Samsung want to do it, but I really don't want Apple to do it and don't think it's "cool" or interesting if someone slaps Miami or Sydney on name.
It's great that you know just enough Spanish to know that means "the captain" but to then learn why these beautiful, inspiring, and very specific (read: not randomly chosen) places around CA were chosen should have at least educated you a little. Personally, I think it would've been boring to have a cityscape as the default background of every macOS release, which would've been the case had they gone with your idea of London, Tokyo, etc.
Kind of sick of the California names. Time for something new, or just plain old numbers again.
Apple is in California. They can choose whatever names they want. What would you prefer, Longhorn?
But Apple sells Macs all over the world. “El Capitan” means “the captain” in Spanish. That’s all I think of when I see that name. I don’t think “hey that’s that random location in California no one knows about!”
Like I said something more international like “London”, “Tokyo” would have been cooler not “Mavericks”.
When Craig joked and said “Mac OS Sea Lion?” I actually thought it was light hearted and funny. But then he said “Mavericks” and I couldn’t believe how shi**y the name was especially compared to big cats.
Personally, I assume that a large percent of those who buy a macOS device (not an iOS device) would know what the OS name refers to, whether they are based in the US or not.
Apparently I'm along in this reasoning, but I'd really rather than stuck with macOS 11.x for a few more years. Absolutely not as long as they did OS X, but my rationale is that macOS 11 was a big under-the-hood (as well as user-facing) redesign, and I would prefer several years of polish and bug-fixing before a major update came out.
We are at present on 11.2.3 as I write this -- this fall would be a good time to introduce macOS 11.3 (let's say), followed the next year by 11.4 and so forth until we get to (again, just plucking a number) 11.7 or thereabouts, where all major issues are resolved and everything is working smoothly for 99.8 percent of users, and it becomes time to incorporate major technological changes -- that's when you bring out macOS 12.
I don't want Apple to follow the path of the idiots in charge of numbering at Firefox and Chrome (versions ***87*** and ***89***, respectively, with ".x" updates coming every week or so). Previously, each major number change for the Mac marked a truly significant change in both the underpinnings and the user interface. OS 9 was a huge improvement on OS 8, which in turn was a giant leap forward from OS 7.
Maybe Apple, now free to design for their Mx chips, have something truly worthy of a full-number upgrade from macOS 11, but I kinda doubt it. I guess we'll find out in June.
You're not alone. I'm not sure I want them to the Chrome and Firefox route, but with their iPadOS, iOS, macOS, & tvOS having a near identical foundation and many of the services being paired up annually, I'd actually like their marketing name for the year be applied to all their major OSes. I think it could help adoption of the new OSes across the products as well as get people with older products to upgrade to optimizes feature pairing.
Apparently I'm along in this reasoning, but I'd really rather than stuck with macOS 11.x for a few more years. Absolutely not as long as they did OS X, but my rationale is that macOS 11 was a big under-the-hood (as well as user-facing) redesign, and I would prefer several years of polish and bug-fixing before a major update came out.
We are at present on 11.2.3 as I write this -- this fall would be a good time to introduce macOS 11.3 (let's say), followed the next year by 11.4 and so forth until we get to (again, just plucking a number) 11.7 or thereabouts, where all major issues are resolved and everything is working smoothly for 99.8 percent of users, and it becomes time to incorporate major technological changes -- that's when you bring out macOS 12.
I don't want Apple to follow the path of the idiots in charge of numbering at Firefox and Chrome (versions ***87*** and ***89***, respectively, with ".x" updates coming every week or so). Previously, each major number change for the Mac marked a truly significant change in both the underpinnings and the user interface. OS 9 was a huge improvement on OS 8, which in turn was a giant leap forward from OS 7.
Maybe Apple, now free to design for their Mx chips, have something truly worthy of a full-number upgrade from macOS 11, but I kinda doubt it. I guess we'll find out in June.
I agree with this, or perhaps naming it after the year in which it was released. Because in 10 years when we're at macOS 22 it'll just be getting ridiculous. iOS 15 seems a bit too high to be sensible imo. In years gone by when macOS changed more, as you say from Mac OS 8 to 9, there was a tangible leap in progress and functionality. Now, the things that used to be a 10.x point release are held until a major release instead, and the OS is pushed on a target date rather than when it's ready - which is why there's often a x.x.1 update a few days after release. The updates to the UI in Big Sur were really no more than the changes between Tiger and Leopard, but that was only a point release; and it was arguably less buggy than Big Sur. Apple needs another Snow Leopard or Mountain Lion to clear out some bugs.
I think the way MS do Windows updates is more sensible, adding features one at a time means less things break at once - but Apple won't do that because they like the fanfare around WWDC. Apple's point updates used to be a few hundred megabytes and took 5 minutes to install, now they're 2.5gb behemoths which take 20 minutes even on the latest machines, just for a couple of bug fixes. The updates should be more targeted, rather than replacing half the OS with each update.
Kind of sick of the California names. Time for something new, or just plain old numbers again.
Apple is in California. They can choose whatever names they want. What would you prefer, Longhorn?
The vast majority of Apple users do not live in California, and I personally could care less about California. It’s just my opinion. The can call it “wet cardboard box” for all I care.
Kind of sick of the California names. Time for something new, or just plain old numbers again.
Apple is in California. They can choose whatever names they want. What would you prefer, Longhorn?
The vast majority of Apple users do not live in California, and I personally could care less about California. It’s just my opinion. The can call it “wet cardboard box” for all I care.
I saw “names” in the headline and was expecting names and not version numbers. I’m hoping we’ll see something like macOS “Kings Canyon” or macOS “Death Valley” but don’t really care what number it has associated with the name.
I keep hoping for Cuyamaca, La Jolla, or Rancho Cucamonga.
Kind of sick of the California names. Time for something new, or just plain old numbers again.
Apple is in California. They can choose whatever names they want. What would you prefer, Longhorn?
The vast majority of Apple users do not live in California, and I personally could care less about California. It’s just my opinion. The can call it “wet cardboard box” for all I care.
How much less could you care?
Infinitely. Let’s call it MacOS Homeless Encampment. That better?
Kind of sick of the California names. Time for something new, or just plain old numbers again.
Apple is in California. They can choose whatever names they want. What would you prefer, Longhorn?
The vast majority of Apple users do not live in California, and I personally could care less about California. It’s just my opinion. The can call it “wet cardboard box” for all I care.
How much less could you care?
Infinitely. Let’s call it MacOS Homeless Encampment. That better?
So you have infinite care for California locations and Apple naming conventions. That's the opposite of what you were trying to convey, but whatever, I guess it's just nice to see someone care so much.
I personally don't like the year in the name. It dates it, so to speak. The date brings nothing to the table so should be left off. MS tried the date thing. Not sure it worked well as they no longer do it.
How they did Mac OS X 10.x was fine. I agree that it would be nicer to see see macOS 11.x each year until there were major updates or changes to stuff to make it worth a new number.
Kind of sick of the California names. Time for something new, or just plain old numbers again.
Apple is in California. They can choose whatever names they want. What would you prefer, Longhorn?
But Apple sells Macs all over the world. “El Capitan” means “the captain” in Spanish. That’s all I think of when I see that name. I don’t think “hey that’s that random location in California no one knows about!”
Like I said something more international like “London”, “Tokyo” would have been cooler not “Mavericks”.
When Craig joked and said “Mac OS Sea Lion?” I actually thought it was light hearted and funny. But then he said “Mavericks” and I couldn’t believe how shi**y the name was especially compared to big cats.
Wow. I’ve never actually heard of El Capitan referred to as a “random location no one knows about”. It’s one of the most famous rock formations on planet earth. Whenever you see a picture of Yosemite, 9 times out of 10 it will be of El Cap. Ever see Free Solo?
Normally you make intelligent arguments, but that one was just straight up fucking moronic.
Kind of sick of the California names. Time for something new, or just plain old numbers again.
Apple is in California. They can choose whatever names they want. What would you prefer, Longhorn?
But Apple sells Macs all over the world. “El Capitan” means “the captain” in Spanish. That’s all I think of when I see that name. I don’t think “hey that’s that random location in California no one knows about!”
Like I said something more international like “London”, “Tokyo” would have been cooler not “Mavericks”.
When Craig joked and said “Mac OS Sea Lion?” I actually thought it was light hearted and funny. But then he said “Mavericks” and I couldn’t believe how shi**y the name was especially compared to big cats.
Wow. I’ve never actually heard of El Capitan referred to as a “random location no one knows about”. It’s one of the most famous rock formations on planet earth. Whenever you see a picture of Yosemite, 9 times out of 10 it will be of El Cap. Ever see Free Solo?
Normally you make intelligent arguments, but that one was just straight up fucking moronic.
Sorry, not sorry.
It might be "one of the most famous rock formations" in the USA, but it is not exactly famous outside the US. Until you said, I never knew what it was, and I like to consider myself fairly well versed in these things.
Kind of sick of the California names. Time for something new, or just plain old numbers again.
Apple is in California. They can choose whatever names they want. What would you prefer, Longhorn?
But Apple sells Macs all over the world. “El Capitan” means “the captain” in Spanish. That’s all I think of when I see that name. I don’t think “hey that’s that random location in California no one knows about!”
Like I said something more international like “London”, “Tokyo” would have been cooler not “Mavericks”.
When Craig joked and said “Mac OS Sea Lion?” I actually thought it was light hearted and funny. But then he said “Mavericks” and I couldn’t believe how shi**y the name was especially compared to big cats.
Wow. I’ve never actually heard of El Capitan referred to as a “random location no one knows about”. It’s one of the most famous rock formations on planet earth. Whenever you see a picture of Yosemite, 9 times out of 10 it will be of El Cap. Ever see Free Solo?
Normally you make intelligent arguments, but that one was just straight up fucking moronic.
Sorry, not sorry.
It might be "one of the most famous rock formations" in the USA, but it is not exactly famous outside the US. Until you said, I never knew what it was, and I like to consider myself fairly well versed in these things.
You're making an argument as to why these are great names for Apple of California's macOS names. They are inspirational and beautiful locations in California that more of the world should know about. You learned something and it looks good on their website and the default background image on their OS for the year. From cliffs, to islands to waves to a desert dune. These have all been very nice shots picked by their marketing teams.
Better than whomever suggesting tI forgot who suggested they use Tokyo and London. Ah, the repetitiveness of using a cityscape…every… fucking… year.
Comments
We are at present on 11.2.3 as I write this -- this fall would be a good time to introduce macOS 11.3 (let's say), followed the next year by 11.4 and so forth until we get to (again, just plucking a number) 11.7 or thereabouts, where all major issues are resolved and everything is working smoothly for 99.8 percent of users, and it becomes time to incorporate major technological changes -- that's when you bring out macOS 12.
I don't want Apple to follow the path of the idiots in charge of numbering at Firefox and Chrome (versions ***87*** and ***89***, respectively, with ".x" updates coming every week or so). Previously, each major number change for the Mac marked a truly significant change in both the underpinnings and the user interface. OS 9 was a huge improvement on OS 8, which in turn was a giant leap forward from OS 7.
When Craig joked and said “Mac OS Sea Lion?” I actually thought it was light hearted and funny. But then he said “Mavericks” and I couldn’t believe how shi**y the name was especially compared to big cats.
It's great that you know just enough Spanish to know that means "the captain" but to then learn why these beautiful, inspiring, and very specific (read: not randomly chosen) places around CA were chosen should have at least educated you a little. Personally, I think it would've been boring to have a cityscape as the default background of every macOS release, which would've been the case had they gone with your idea of London, Tokyo, etc.
You're not alone. I'm not sure I want them to the Chrome and Firefox route, but with their iPadOS, iOS, macOS, & tvOS having a near identical foundation and many of the services being paired up annually, I'd actually like their marketing name for the year be applied to all their major OSes. I think it could help adoption of the new OSes across the products as well as get people with older products to upgrade to optimizes feature pairing.
I think the way MS do Windows updates is more sensible, adding features one at a time means less things break at once - but Apple won't do that because they like the fanfare around WWDC. Apple's point updates used to be a few hundred megabytes and took 5 minutes to install, now they're 2.5gb behemoths which take 20 minutes even on the latest machines, just for a couple of bug fixes. The updates should be more targeted, rather than replacing half the OS with each update.
- Sequoia
- Lake Tahoe
- Mount Lassen
- Joshua Tree
- Salton Sea
...How they did Mac OS X 10.x was fine. I agree that it would be nicer to see see macOS 11.x each year until there were major updates or changes to stuff to make it worth a new number.
Better than whomever suggesting tI forgot who suggested they use Tokyo and London. Ah, the repetitiveness of using a cityscape…every… fucking… year.