Mac OS X vs. OS XI

I admit that this is a bit of a random observation (I'm still new to all things Apple), but it seems that signifcant Apple software upgrades are numbered on the first decimal point, and minor upgrades on the second decimal point (third level). So are mega upgrades reserved for the whole digit? For example, if Leopard is such a significant upgrade (and it only goes from 10.4 to 10.5), what would an upgrade to OS XI look like??

 

If anything, I think a major major transition in "computing experience" will signal the change to OS XI (if it ever arrives...Apple seems in love with the name "OS X", which looks and sounds good ).

Possibly when the third computing experience (first command line, second GUI, third multi-touch) is finally heavily implemented onto the Mac will be the release of OS XI.

 

I have a feeling that Apple won't abandon the "OSX" format for OS XI, instead they'll likely go to "OS X2" since so many people actually call the X a letter and not the Roman number 10.

 

I think the people who actually know and use Macs call it as it was intended "OS Ten," so really Apple wouldn't abandon the natural progression to "OS Eleven" just because people who don't know Macintosh call it "OS Ex."

 

I call OS X "OS Ten". I listen to lots of tech podcasts, and its hilarious when the self-proclaimed Apple experts go "Well, what this means to users of 'OS Ex'...", "They're releasing a version for 'OS Ex' next month".

 

yeah. os ex sounds cooler than os ten. i say it just because its easier, even though i know its wrong. i don't care enough lol.

i think multi touch will be a part of os x.

 

I'm sure that even Steve Jobs referred to it as "OS Ex" at some point.

 

OS "Ex" - it sounds much much better.
Even if it's supposed to mean "10" - X sounds better and is more marketable.
Also if you call it OS X - then you get the feeling it's something new, and not just a progression from 8, 9, 10, etc.

Same thing with Photoshop CS instead of just calling it 8.0.

"10" doesn't mean anything - it's just telling everyone okay, there were 9 major versions before it - which is good for checking for versions, but beyond that it's not great. Being able to call it OS "X" just sounds a whole lot better.

 

Mac OS 1 through 9 were a succession of systems that were similar in look, if not internally, though the changes were sometimes major (including an architecture change, the Intel transition is not the first one). Then the change to OS X (10) came and it was an entirely new system and look. Now Apple is going through the 10.x-numbers as new systems with the same look and feel, and given that it has lasted for about 7 years now and is only at 10.5, I'm sure it will stay like this for the foreseeable future.

There's also the names for each version of OS X, which might evolve into taking over at some point. I think that is more likely than calling it OS 11 anyway - it will still be OS 11 as far as version numbering goes, but the popular name Apple uses will be something else, I expect.

That looks somewhat strange when I read it now, but I hope you understand what I mean

Oh, and I say "OS X" most of the time, though intellectually I know it's supposed to be OS 10. It just sounds better

 

OS XP!
OS Millenium!
OS Vista!
OS NT!
OS Vienna!

 

Why would mac choose to market it as OS "X" if they wanted it to be called OS Ten? They deliberately chose OS "X" because it sounds more hip and sexy, while retaining the spirit of being the 10th iteration of their OS. Self proclaimed mac purests who insist in calling it OS Ten are just being elitist.

 

First of all, it is officially OS "Ten". And yes I agree, they used "X" instead of "10" or "Ten" because it looks way cooler to be OS X than OS 10. But by official pronunciation its OS "Ten".

 

Or they think it sounds better? "OS Ex" sounds a bit tacky and played out to me, something like "the new and improved Eliminator 3000." Thats just me though. In the end, there is no real significance as everyone understands it both ways all the same.

 

I think there is a misconception of what the naming convention is. OS X is different from OS 9 in that the underlying code is completely different. So, with that in mind, OS 11 would presumably be a similar change, and therefore would be a while off. Each revision of OS X is equivalent to a version of Windows, but they name their versions somewhat differently than Microsoft. I believe Vista is 6.0 for Windows, but don't hold me to that.

That is a roundabout way to say that OS 11 is many years into the future. Until Apple decides to move away from Darwin or there is some other major change to the core system, we will likely continue to see OS X revisions.