 |
 |
Mac OS 11 (Page 2)
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Topeka, KS, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
I can't believe I'm the first one to bring this up, since it seems like the incredibly obvious brand comparison...
...remember OS/2?
It was always OS/2, no matter what the version number was. I suspect Mac OS X will be much the same way. "Mac OS X" is the brand name. "X" is not the version number. It's part of the name of the operating system, just like "2" wasn't the version number, but rather part of the "OS/2" brand name.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Topeka, KS, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
I can't believe I'm the first one to bring this up, since it seems like the incredibly obvious brand comparison...
...remember OS/2?
It was always OS/2, no matter what the version number was. I suspect Mac OS X will be much the same way. "Mac OS X" is the brand name. "X" is not the version number. It's part of the name of the operating system, just like "2" wasn't the version number, but rather part of the "OS/2" brand name.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Topeka, KS, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
I can't believe I'm the first one to bring this up, since it seems like the incredibly obvious brand comparison...
...remember OS/2?
It was always OS/2, no matter what the version number was. I suspect Mac OS X will be much the same way. "Mac OS X" is the brand name. "X" is not the version number. It's part of the name of the operating system, just like "2" wasn't the version number, but rather part of the "OS/2" brand name.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Topeka, KS, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
I can't believe I'm the first one to bring this up, since it seems like the incredibly obvious brand comparison...
...remember OS/2?
It was always OS/2, no matter what the version number was. I suspect Mac OS X will be much the same way. "Mac OS X" is the brand name. "X" is not the version number. It's part of the name of the operating system, just like "2" wasn't the version number, but rather part of the "OS/2" brand name.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Boca Raton, FL
Status:
Offline
|
|
MacOS 10
MacOS 11
MacOS 100
MacOS 101
MacOS 110
MacOS 111
.
.
.
|
JONATHAN B. HOREN
Linux/Unix/MacOSX Systems Administration
Boca Raton, FL
[email protected]
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Nashville
Status:
Offline
|
|
One thing I do know for sure, macnn forum poster are almost never right about Apple predictions.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Downtown Austin, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: France
Status:
Offline
|
|
Seems double-double posting is acting up again...
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator  Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by manray
In fact, a large part of the reason Intel switched to "Pentium" for the release of the 586 was the fact that they could trademark (and protect) a name, but not a number.
...and competitors released their own CPUs with the "486" model number, which confused consumers. Yes, that was why, but to be logical the Pentium Pro ought to have been named Hexium and the Pentium 4 Heptium, since they used new cores that were as big a deviation from the Pentium as the Pentium was from the 486. Compared to these core changes, the addition of MMX and SSE was a very minor tweak to an existing design, but I suppose you could call them something special as well.
Many people expected the Pentium 4 "Prescott" to be called Pentium 5, because it added new instructions, which is what Intel has used before as a marker to put a new number on their CPUs. That it wasn't was the first indication that maybe the entire Pentium 4/Netburst idea wasn't such a good one.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Columbus, OH
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by jcroft
I can't believe I'm the first one to bring this up, since it seems like the incredibly obvious brand comparison...
...remember OS/2?
It was always OS/2, no matter what the version number was. I suspect Mac OS X will be much the same way. "Mac OS X" is the brand name. "X" is not the version number. It's part of the name of the operating system, just like "2" wasn't the version number, but rather part of the "OS/2" brand name.
Bingo! Give the man a ceegar! (sorry if you're not male  )
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top