Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Software - Troubleshooting and Discussion > macOS > Mac OS 11

Mac OS 11
Thread Tools
Jacob
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2005, 01:09 AM
 
If and when it happens, what do you think it will be like...Mac OS 11?
"I cluck, therefor I am."
     
vinster
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Denver
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2005, 01:35 AM
 
Version numbers are purely marketing anymore so I don't think OS XI will be much different from OS 10.9x

When OS X first came out, I remember Apple saying they could get like 10 years worth of marketing from various OS X revisions. Personally, I think Apple should re-brand both the OS and Macintosh names when transitioning to the Intel architecture.
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2005, 02:05 AM
 
The Macintosh name has been rebranded for at least four years. It's Mac now.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2005, 05:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by vinster
Version numbers are purely marketing anymore so I don't think OS XI will be much different from OS 10.9x

When OS X first came out, I remember Apple saying they could get like 10 years worth of marketing from various OS X revisions. Personally, I think Apple should re-brand both the OS and Macintosh names when transitioning to the Intel architecture.
So you concede that Apple's Intel PCs won't be Macs?

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2005, 07:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by Big Mac
So you concede that Apple's Intel PCs won't be Macs?
Only if you concede that Apple's PowerPCs aren't Macintosh.
     
Stradlater
Professional Poster
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Off the Tobakoff
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2005, 09:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -
The Macintosh name has been rebranded for at least four years. It's Mac now.
http://store.apple.com/ still lists all of the Macs under the header of "Macintosh"
"You rise," he said, "like Aurora."
     
Maflynn
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2005, 10:03 AM
 
I thought I purchased a macintosh myself

As for OS 11, who knows, I cannot fathom what will be in the next point upgrade never mind a whole new version.

Mike
     
mattyd
Senior User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: san fran, ca
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2005, 12:00 PM
 
Maybe Apple could have the Spinal Tap guys do a campaign...

"But this one goes to 11!"
     
msuper69
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Columbus, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2005, 05:59 PM
 
Mac OS X will be around for at least a decade, possibly longer.

And the next big change (like the one from Classic to X) will not be XI.

X is a marketing ploy, not a version number. It just so happens that the last Classic Mac OS was on version 9, so Mac OS X carried on with version 10. Confusing? Yes. But I seriously doubt we will ever see Mac OS XI.
     
analogika
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: 888500128
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2005, 06:15 PM
 
The only problem with the Mac OS X brand is all those knuckleheads going on about how you have to pay for "point" upgrades (i.e. 10.3-->10.4), but heck. I can live with that, and I'm sure Apple can.
     
jmiddel
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Land of Enchantment
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2005, 09:40 PM
 
I agree with msuper69 that X is a marketing ploy, let's face it. 11, or even XI, does not hit you between the ideas as the combo of the letter 'x' and roman numeral 10. X implies endless possibilities, as in the unkown number, an adventure in that the number has to be found and is different for each equation, and the ten association to perfection is obvious, at least in our english speaking culture.

The original post was about the nature rather than the name of the next great mac os. I envision total voice control, losing the keybord and having an AI built in that knows what I want even if I'm to slow or distracted to input the exactly right stuff. In other words, one that can learn from our interactions and my mistakes.
     
andreas_g4
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: adequate, thanks.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2005, 07:28 PM
 
It will be snappier. And maybe they FTFF.
     
kmkkid
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Brantford, ON. Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2005, 08:16 PM
 
Mac OS X.X (10.10) should be out by hmmmm 2010ish... 2011ish.
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2005, 11:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by analogika
The only problem with the Mac OS X brand is all those knuckleheads going on about how you have to pay for "point" upgrades (i.e. 10.3-->10.4), but heck. I can live with that, and I'm sure Apple can.
Well they are certainly compensating for the "point upgrades" in OS X in iTunes now

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
production_coordinator
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2005, 01:34 AM
 
I think they will stick to OS X for a very long time...

They could even say OS X 11.0 considering the current name is OS X 10.4.2
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2005, 07:32 AM
 
Mac OS Y?
     
ism
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2005, 07:39 AM
 
Why not. It's nearly Yunix anyway.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2005, 12:44 AM
 
Mac OS X-Trem Ultimate Pro Edition x2 Mellenium
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
AmericanPsych0
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2005, 04:50 AM
 
How about take the Final Fantasy route?

OS X-2.



Originally Posted by production_coordinator
They could even say OS X 11.0 considering the current name is OS X 10.4.2
The only problem with that is that the X is pronounced "ten," which I'm sure you know. It's just that it'd be a tad confusing, calling it "Oh-Es Ten Eleven" (OS X 11). Not that it'd necessarily be pronounced that way, or that most would even pronounce it as "ten" (choosing, instead, to pronounce it as the letter: ex), or that it would even matter given that we refer to them by their codenames a lot now-a-days. But they'll have had a good decade or so to decide by the time they unveil *OS XI* (whatever name they choose).
When Vin Diesel pops a can of Pringles, the fun stops after about fifteen minutes.
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2005, 05:36 AM
 
You know how Intel had the 286 processor, then the 386, then the 486... and then they gave the 586 the moniker "Pentium" to emphasize the five-ness of it, and then marketed the heck out of it? And then released the 686 with the name "Pentium Pro" and then the Pentium II, Pentium III, Pentium IV, and then the Pentium M which by that time had very little at all to do with the original 586 Pentium anymore, but which kept the "Pentium" name because of all the branding they'd done?

Well, this is kind of like that. IMO.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
AmericanPsych0
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2005, 05:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS
You know how Intel had the 286 processor, then the 386, then the 486... and then they gave the 586 the moniker "Pentium" to emphasize the five-ness of it, and then marketed the heck out of it? And then released the 686 with the name "Pentium Pro" and then the Pentium II, Pentium III, Pentium IV, and then the Pentium M which by that time had very little at all to do with the original 586 Pentium anymore, but which kept the "Pentium" name because of all the branding they'd done?

Well, this is kind of like that. IMO.
As a matter of fact, I didn't know all that. ^^; Thanks. It's a Helluva good argument against my little spiel.
When Vin Diesel pops a can of Pringles, the fun stops after about fifteen minutes.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2005, 07:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS
You know how Intel had the 286 processor, then the 386, then the 486... and then they gave the 586 the moniker "Pentium" to emphasize the five-ness of it, and then marketed the heck out of it? And then released the 686 with the name "Pentium Pro" and then the Pentium II, Pentium III, Pentium IV, and then the Pentium M which by that time had very little at all to do with the original 586 Pentium anymore, but which kept the "Pentium" name because of all the branding they'd done?

Well, this is kind of like that. IMO.
It's a lot like that. The Pentium Pro - 686 - was an attempt to segment the market, as Intel still sold the original Pentium as a cheaper option (this became the Celeron - regular - Xeon model lateron). Pentium II and Pentium III were really just rebrandings of the Pentium Pro with a new cache system and a few new instructions on the III, so it was fair to not give them a real new name. The Pentium 4, however, was based on a new architechture (Netburst) and a new core (Willamette) and really did deserve to be called 786 or Heptium or whatever, but at that point Intel was so invested in the Pentium name that they couldn't really toss it overboard.

I'm very interested in what Intel is going to name its CPUs going forward. Conroe, the successor to Pentium M that will replace the Pentium 4s, is a rather major step in a new direction according to Intel. I wonder if that one will be Pentium 5 (which would be hilarious, frankly), some other variation of the name (Pentium X?) or a new name altogether. The Pentium brand is getting very old, and I don't think it's a selling point anymore. Perhpas it's finally time for something new?

Apple might end up in the same spot, but I don't think it will be for some time yet. The name "Mac OS X" is still a good one - and don't forget that those points in the version number aren't really decimals. The successor to 10.9 could be 10.10.
     
Appleman
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: France
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2005, 11:21 AM
 
Since it's called Mac OS X 10.4.2 they could call it Mac OS X 11 indeed.
10.9 being less than 10.10 is mathematically wrong I would say.
Then we still have the cats as well, don't know how many more cats are available though?
Might need to move to another specie?
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2005, 11:35 AM
 
I believe Apple said at one time that the Classic OS lasted about 20 years, and that they expected OS X to last about 20 years. I think OS X will be around for a long time. Beyond 10.9 we will see 10.10, 10.11, 10.12, and so on...

Chris
     
msuper69
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Columbus, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2005, 05:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Appleman
10.9 being less than 10.10 is mathematically wrong I would say.
,,,
The versioning system used by Apple is not mathematical but logical. Each part of the version number is considered separately, therefore 9 is less than 10 no matter it's place in the version number.
     
Appleman
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: France
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2005, 05:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by msuper69
The versioning system used by Apple is not mathematical but logical. Each part of the version number is considered separately, therefore 9 is less than 10 no matter it's place in the version number.
     
chabig
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2005, 09:21 PM
 
10.10. is higher than 10.9 because 10>9. See? It's just tradition that the parts of the version number are separated by dots. They could be dashes too: 10-9, 10-10, etc.

Chris
     
msuper69
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Columbus, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2005, 09:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Appleman
Wow! My first ever
     
Eriamjh
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: BFE
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2005, 09:28 PM
 
I'm waiting for Mac OS XL.

I'm a bird. I am the 1% (of pets).
     
Kristoff
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: in front of the keyboard
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 23, 2005, 09:37 PM
 
Too small of a kernel for me.

I want Max OS XXL
signatures are a waste of bandwidth
especially ones with political tripe in them.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2005, 05:21 PM
 
Actually I'd prefer Mac OS XS - regular Mac OS X with all the debugging code removed...
     
tomodachi
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2005, 08:00 PM
 
Yeah, and I'm waitin' for me

Mac OS XXX

yeee-haw.
     
fady
Junior Member
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 28, 2005, 09:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by tomodachi
Yeah, and I'm waitin' for me

Mac OS XXX

yeee-haw.

I agree... Mac OS XXX will be the naughtiest of them all... saucy!

F.
fady :-)
proud owner of a MacPro.
     
Bengt77
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2005, 04:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by chabig
I believe Apple said at one time that the Classic OS lasted about 20 years, and that they expected OS X to last about 20 years. I think OS X will be around for a long time. Beyond 10.9 we will see 10.10, 10.11, 10.12, and so on...

Chris
Exactly. That's precisely what I think we'll see, too. Why bother with rebranding the thing to OS Eleven when everybody (including everyone using Windows) knows the thing as OS Ten? Seems it would be a waste of marketing recourses doing that.
     
aljawad
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2005, 05:26 AM
 
I doubt if there is any significance in debating the issue of naming the OS – look at how Microsoft migrated from DOS -> Windows 1,2,3.x -> 9x/2000 -> XP -> Vista. At the rate Apple is now releasing its OS increments every 1.5-2 years, MacOS X.x will be around for, say, a decade. What will come after that around the time when the Macintosh will be celebrating the beginning of its fourth decade (!) is anyones guess. System 11, MacOS X1, XX, X^2, Y, 2015, … probably even Apple has no solid plan for what will come then

Apples use of numbers might seem arbitrary, but there is a reason behind them. If I remember my history correctly, the company first attempted to create a modern OS back in the late 1980s / early 1990s with Pink, which was prior to the collaboration with IBM on Talegent and Kalieda. 1991 saw the introduction of System 7 which was codenamed “blue”. In the mid-1990s came the dual concepts of Copland and Gershwin. Copland was supposed to be System 8 and it was to offer semi-modern OS features, while Gershwin (System 9) was to be Apples entry into the modern OS era. Copland was initially promised in 1995 with Gershwin to follow a couple of years afterwards. We all know that never happened.

In 1996 then Apple CEO Gil Amelio finally pulled the plug on Copland, announcing that whatever technologies that were already developed would be incrementally released into the Mac OS, starting with System 7.6. Apple went shopping for the elusive modern OS, which was hoped to be System 8, and they ended up with Next. Initially the plan called for System 8 to be based on Nextstep technologies – with a yellow box to run on Intel machines. That was the year that also witnessed the demise of the Mac clone and the CHRP architecture. Apple demanded a renegotiation in the terms of its agreements with the clonemakers and would not release G3 specs to them. It was rumored the ploy they used was that the prior agreements were intended for the licensing of System 7.x only and new terms were needed for System 8. Later that summer Apple released the next incremental release as System 8.0 rather than 7.7 as was the plan according to Amelios roadmap. During next years WWDC – about a week after the introduction of the first iMac – Steve Jobs outlined the OS roadmap. To fully migrate to a modern OS and to keep it simple the next (classic) OS release would be MacOS 9 so that the next release would be the modern System 10.
I sent my Soul through the Invisible,
Some letter of that After-life to spell:
And by and by my Soul return'd to me,
And answer'd "I Myself am Heav'n and Hell."
     
Jackus
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2005, 06:42 AM
 
Nah nah nah.. your all wrong. In 2010, when we reach the end of Mac OS X, Apple will bring out "Macintosh 2010". It will a very few number of upgrades, but they will be Macintosh 2011, 2012, and 2013.
     
osxrules
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Oct 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2005, 10:15 AM
 
By then it should be Intel only. I think they will really need a different name for the Intel OS X to avoid confusion. Maybe Mac OS iX - goes with the iapps naming convention.

When the time comes to change the system, maybe the guys at the top will realise that by having different systems hurts the consumer more than anything just like having more than one HD format.

I don't mind if the front end is different but they should all get together - Linux, Mac, Windows and build one amazing system together. The back end to the system would be entirely open and free. It would just come in different configurations (some you would obviously have to pay for) so OS X would include their own tools like Spotlight, Dashboard, Quartz, imovie, garageband etc. Windows would give you Windows movie maker and all the vista Apple ripoffs. Linux would give you a bundle of open source software.

But all the software should be compatible with the other systems in the extent that the binaries run natively. That way, we have none of the silly OS wars or incompatibility issues. Now since unix is a more secure and stable back end than Windows and has next to zero viruses then it makes sense to use it. The problem is just getting Microsoft to open their eyes. They seem to think that having the biggest market share means they have the best system and everyone else is incompatible.

If only people prioritized the consumers before their profit margin.
     
msuper69
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Columbus, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2005, 11:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by osxrules
By then it should be Intel only. I think they will really need a different name for the Intel OS X to avoid confusion.
Won't make any difference as OS X will likely be distributed as a Universal Binary.

I don't mind if the front end is different but they should all get together - Linux, Mac, Windows and build one amazing system together. The back end to the system would be entirely open and free. It would just come in different configurations (some you would obviously have to pay for) so OS X would include their own tools like Spotlight, Dashboard, Quartz, imovie, garageband etc. Windows would give you Windows movie maker and all the vista Apple ripoffs. Linux would give you a bundle of open source software.

But all the software should be compatible with the other systems in the extent that the binaries run natively. That way, we have none of the silly OS wars or incompatibility issues. Now since unix is a more secure and stable back end than Windows and has next to zero viruses then it makes sense to use it. The problem is just getting Microsoft to open their eyes. They seem to think that having the biggest market share means they have the best system and everyone else is incompatible.

If only people prioritized the consumers before their profit margin.
My friend you are living in a fantasy-land. I normally don't use absolutes but MS is never going to work together with any other OS maker.
     
osxrules
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Oct 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2005, 12:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by msuper69
My friend you are living in a fantasy-land. I normally don't use absolutes but MS is never going to work together with any other OS maker.
I agree it probably won't happen but you never know for sure these days.

Did you ever imagine a day when Mac systems would run on Intel machines? Or that Microsoft would use PowerPC chips or that they would even release a games console? Or that Apple would make a brand new system based on unix? Or that Apple would make an mp3 player and offer a legal music downloading service?
     
BGK
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Roanoke, VA USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2005, 01:25 PM
 
I don't know... maybe in the next upgrade, or perhaps OS XI, whenever that comes out, I'd like to see a really, really vamped up system wide GUI, kind of like how Apple's new pro apps are set up. I watched the video demos of Aperture, for example, and well, it's just beautiful to the eye.

Of course we'll have to have all new systems by then, to be able to run it!
I want the ability to sleep in the snow, if I have to. I want the ability to want to.
     
Anubis IV
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Huh?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 29, 2005, 09:46 PM
 
Why not play off of the fact that XI would be "better" than X and call it "Mac OS X+1". Officially it might be Mac OS XI, but referring to it as X+1 preserves the somewhat mysterious nature of the n umber X while also insinuating that the X+1 is superior to X. Might be a bit corny, but I wouldn't put it past them to market it like that.
"The captured hunter hunts your mind."
Profanity is the tool of the illiterate.
     
ananas
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2005, 06:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by osxrules
I agree it probably won't happen but you never know for sure these days.

Did you ever imagine a day when Mac systems would run on Intel machines? Or that Microsoft would use PowerPC chips or that they would even release a games console? Or that Apple would make a brand new system based on unix? Or that Apple would make an mp3 player and offer a legal music downloading service?
What?! No one can forsee the future, but all your examples were either highly likely or not surprising at all:

Mac on Intel?

It's widely know that Apple internally had System 7 running on Intel in the early 1990ies, NeXTstep has been running on Intel since then too. Windows NT 4 supported Intel, PPC, MIPS and Alpha in 1996. You could continue this list as long as you liked... (Serious) operating systems tend to be written in high level languages since the early 1970ies, thus the decision to support one or the other CPU architecture is one of plain economics and technical evolution.

XBox on PPC?

I think it was so much more unlikely that they chose Intel on the XBox 1 than PPC on the 360 in the first place. Every other console since the early 90ies has been using RISC (Saturn, PSX, N64, Dreamcast, PS2, Gamecube, GBA, to name just a few). RISC CPUs tend to be more of an IP offering than any x86 you could get, allowing you to customize them much better to the environment they're designed to run in, making extreme sense on high level selling game consoles.

Microsoft and games consoles?

While unexpected, it falls in line with their new strategy of Microsoft software on any Microsoft software capable device. Thou shalt have no other software besides ours ...

Mac OS on Unix, what else?!

There is a long experience with Unices at Apple, and they have been offering Unices since the late 80ies in form of A/UX. They had Finder running on that, it would run Mac apps almost as simply as being recompiled, and they had MAE (Macintosh Application Environment), which the Mac Toolbox for alien unices. Everyone knew they would be buying into 3rd party technology when they were struggling for survival in mid-1990ies. Both candidates, NeXT and BeOS were either Unix or very close to it in their approaches.

iPod?

Ok, the iPod started out small and ended up big. But Apple has a long tradition of making peripherals igniting new industries, from laser printers, cd-drives, scanners, PDAs, multimedia displays, digicams (remember the QuickTake 100, certainly being among the first half usable digicams with mass appeal). The iPod was a great move, but the lucky factor was that they showed more persistence with it than with earlier tries in the field. The music store is just a logical consequence of the iPod eco system, while in the end, it's success will certainly be changing Apple more than anything else in its history.

So, coming back to the question of Microsoft and other OSes.

One should never say never, but I agree, that OS is one of their assumed core competencies. While things are softening with publishing source and treating the open source community less harsh, they are very far away from combining a third party OS with their offerings, since they have their own technology so avaiblable. Linux has to get a much higher market share to see MS Office being made available. On the other hand, Word and Excel were Mac products first, Mono is a certainly more than half heartedly supported port of some of .NET's core technologies to most any other platform.

I still would dare to say, that for the next 10 years, Windows, Linux and Mac OS will exist in parallel. There is a chance for the Mac OS X kernel to change to Solaris, but you won't see any of X's higher level APIs (xcept QT) on any other platform in this timeframe.
     
samslaves
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Piacenza (italy)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 30, 2005, 01:22 PM
 
--> OS VISTO <--

     
JulesLt
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2005, 04:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by osxrules
By then it should be Intel only. I think they will really need a different name for the Intel OS X to avoid confusion. Maybe Mac OS iX - goes with the iapps naming convention.
Quite the opposite I think - different names will frighten consumers. A single name will give the message Apple want (the CPU doesn't matter, the platform - Apple - does).


>When the time comes to change the system, maybe the guys at the top will realise that by >having different systems hurts the consumer more than anything just like having more than >one HD format.

Despite all prediction, it's never happened with video consoles - or even web standards - because there is always some competitive advantage in moving ahead of the standard. There's never even been one kind of petrol. And there's certainly not one kind of Linux.

With video consoles it's been good, as well as bad, for consumers. There's never been one platform to run all games, but there's been competition between platforms.

Settling on a single platform could be appalling for consumers - it would be like saying that Intel have got CPU design right so we will stick with them forever. I'm glad Microsoft and Sony have supported PPC when Apple have gone Intel, as it's important to keep alternatives alive and competing.

>I don't mind if the front end is different but they should all get together - Linux, Mac, >Windows and build one amazing system together.

You're making an error in thinking that any of these systems is just a front-end layer. The layer that drives the hardware in all 3 families of O/S is very thin. With Linux and BSD/MacOS it is of course very similar (a lot of the drivers are ports from Linux to BSD). It's technologies like Quartz and Cocoa that make it simple for developers to write MacOS applications rapidly. Is Quartz front-end or back-end?
There are similar O/S projects, but as Linux isn't a standard they aren't used as a standard (hence no standard look and feel yet).

Spotlight also has to be pretty 'back-end' to work properly (i.e. live near the file system). I'm not convinced of it's worth yet (and it's something Linux has been ahead on), but I think it's a stalking horse (wait for the new spotlight driven finder in 10.5) -it becomes more useful the more applications take advantage of it


>But all the software should be compatible with the other systems in the extent that the >binaries run natively.
Again, that's advocating a single CPU architecture going forward. Yuck. I'd prefer the opposite situation - software that runs on any CPU, with the notion of the 'binary' hidden from the user (and developer as far as possible) - the universal binary idea is one whose time has come. It should also be automated on download sites. I wish Apple weren't swapping to Intel but just adding Intel as an option. O/S and technologies like OpenGL have hidden much of the hardware, and serious O/S like the 'big unix' have always been cross-CPU (but never binary compatible).
Basically, we should be moving the consumer away from caring about the CPU.

> That way, we have none of the silly OS wars or incompatibility issues. Now since unix is a >more secure and stable back end than Windows and has next to zero viruses then it makes >sense to use it. The problem is just getting Microsoft to open their eyes. They seem to think >that having the biggest market share means they have the best system and everyone else is >incompatible.

I think what's more important is DATA compatibility - i.e. MP3, jpg, etc. I can accept different systems offering different programs but I want to able to move my data between them.
I don't care if I use Word on a Mac and OpenOffice on Linux so long as the file opens the same and doesn't get corrupted.
     
Appleman
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: France
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2005, 05:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by msuper69
Wow! My first ever
Sorry for that but actually I replied like this as you said: "...is not mathematical but logical..." and I was a bit confused, since mathematical to me is quite logical
But hey, I really didn't mean anything with it though.
Cheers!
     
manray
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2005, 07:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS
You know how Intel had the 286 processor, then the 386, then the 486... and then they gave the 586 the moniker "Pentium" to emphasize the five-ness of it, and then marketed the heck out of it? And then released the 686 with the name "Pentium Pro" and then the Pentium II, Pentium III, Pentium IV, and then the Pentium M which by that time had very little at all to do with the original 586 Pentium anymore, but which kept the "Pentium" name because of all the branding they'd done?

Well, this is kind of like that. IMO.
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.
     
fnkybach
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sacramento, California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2005, 10:33 AM
 
I don't think it will becalled os XI or os 11 I think Apple will go with something a bit more creative perhaps something like OS X² ...Sure I know the math doesnt add up. But who cares it's a lot more attractive than os 11.

And as far as features because I thought that was what this was originally about I think that this will take advantage of Apples new 3d finder and the interactive brain implant with bio desire readout, maybe a motion sensor oh and they will only run on G12 processors everything lower will be to slow, and yes! they are G processors because apple gave up the hair brained intel idea (still butt hurt over that one)..... Oh and they will always be macintii. Always! whether they are called Apple, Macs, Macintosh, granny smith or golden select!
     
fnkybach
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sacramento, California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2005, 10:33 AM
 
I don't think it will becalled os XI or os 11 I think Apple will go with something a bit more creative perhaps something like OS X² ...Sure I know the math doesnt add up. But who cares it's a lot more attractive than os 11.

And as far as features because I thought that was what this was originally about I think that this will take advantage of Apples new 3d finder and the interactive brain implant with bio desire readout, maybe a motion sensor oh and they will only run on G12 processors everything lower will be to slow, and yes! they are G processors because apple gave up the hair brained intel idea (still butt hurt over that one)..... Oh and they will always be macintii. Always! whether they are called Apple, Macs, Macintosh, granny smith or golden select!
     
fnkybach
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sacramento, California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2005, 10:35 AM
 
I don't think it will becalled os XI or os 11 I think Apple will go with something a bit more creative perhaps something like OS X² ...Sure I know the math doesnt add up. But who cares it's a lot more attractive than os 11.

And as far as features because I thought that was what this was originally about I think that this will take advantage of Apples new 3d finder and the interactive brain implant with bio desire readout, maybe a motion sensor oh and they will only run on G12 processors everything lower will be to slow, and yes! they are G processors because apple gave up the hair brained intel idea (still butt hurt over that one)..... Oh and they will always be macintii. Always! whether they are called Apple, Macs, Macintosh, granny smith or golden select!
     
fnkybach
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Sacramento, California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 31, 2005, 11:40 AM
 
I don't think it will becalled os XI or os 11 I think Apple will go with something a bit more creative perhaps something like OS X² ...Sure I know the math doesnt add up. But who cares it's a lot more attractive than os 11.

And as far as features because I thought that was what this was originally about I think that this will take advantage of Apples new 3d finder and the interactive brain implant with bio desire readout, maybe a motion sensor oh and they will only run on G12 processors everything lower will be to slow, and yes! they are G processors because apple gave up the hair brained intel idea (still butt hurt over that one)..... Oh and they will always be macintii. Always! whether they are called Apple, Macs, Macintosh, granny smith or golden select!
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:44 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,