When do you think we'll see OS XI ?

[aphex]

Or do you think Apple will stick with the OSX for awhile?

 

[bearxor]

Probably 2011-2012. Jobs said that OS X was the platform for the next decade when they unveiled it.

 

[randomlinh]

they can't stick to roman numerals tho. OS XI looks so stupid, heh. OS 11 will not have that advertising edge.

Oddly enough, I think Windows 7 would be a good naming successor to Vista, so go figure.

 

[TheStu]

Originally posted by: randomlinh
they can't stick to roman numerals tho. OS XI looks so stupid, heh. OS 11 will not have that advertising edge.

Oddly enough, I think Windows 7 would be a good naming successor to Vista, so go figure.

I agree on all points, I too think that OS XI and OS 11 are both a little lame, so they will need to call it something awesome. If you think about it, the new Star Trek movie is technically the 11th, but it is just called Star Trek, so maybe Apple Mac OS.

I also agree that Windows 7 sounds kind of bad ass in a way. Much more than any other name it has ever had.

 

[ChAoTiCpInOy]

Well we're on 10.5 so there's .5 more to go so maybe another 5-10 years?

 

[bearxor]

Originally posted by: ChAoTiCpInOy
Well we're on 10.5 so there's .5 more to go so maybe another 5-10 years?

Apple releases a "new" OS roughly every 12-18 months.

 

[TheStu]

Originally posted by: bearxor

Originally posted by: ChAoTiCpInOy
Well we're on 10.5 so there's .5 more to go so maybe another 5-10 years?

Apple releases a "new" OS roughly every 12-18 months.

Well, Tiger was out for 2 years or more, and although OS X still has a ways to go maturity wise, it is most of the way there, and now we will just be getting more releases like Leopard probably.

I like Leopard (I know that you don't) and think it is worth the price if only for the increased software compatibility down the road. The first of the Leopard only 3rd party apps are trickling in now (Handbrake 0.9.2 is notable for this, and Delicious Library 2 will be as well), and we will only be seeing more of them.

Something that Apple does a lot of is integrate thing into OS 10.n that will be used in OS 10.n+1. There are a lot of things in 10.4 that basically had no use, until we saw them in 10.5... "oh look, that is for Time Machine, and that library is for QuickLook" or things along those lines.

Honestly, I think that i will take something quite major for them to switch to OS XI

 

[bearxor]

Originally posted by: TheStu

Originally posted by: bearxor

Originally posted by: ChAoTiCpInOy
Well we're on 10.5 so there's .5 more to go so maybe another 5-10 years?

Apple releases a "new" OS roughly every 12-18 months.

Well, Tiger was out for 2 years or more

Stevie himself considers 10.4 Intel a "major operating system release that we don't get credit for." I'm 100% certain that if Apple hadn't made the Intel switch 10.5 would have been out in 2006 and 10.6 would have been released by now or be really close to release.

It's not that I dislike Leopard, or any OS X release in general (ok, maybe 10.2 and below...) I just love the bashing Microsoft gets for Vista when Leopard amounts to pretty much the same thing, a very pretty facelift.

300+ new features and unless you do EVERYTHING that OS X can do all the time, 250+ of those features are meaningless.

I'm still sticking with Stevie's OS X announcement in 2001 that it will be their platform for the next decade. Along with OS X's release schedule of 12-18 months would put that right in to the time frame of 2011-2012 for a "OS 11".

And Microsoft will never name their OS 'Windows 7', lest the Apple fanboys claim that 'X is better and 7'.

 

[Injury]

Originally posted by: bearxor
And Microsoft will never name their OS 'Windows 7', lest the Apple fanboys claim that 'X is better and 7'.

MS fanboys would reply with "Took less tries to get it right."


The big gripe I have about Apple is that they charge $100+ for what equates to a service pack for other operating systems. Yes, OS X has come a LONG way since the start but AFAIK there hasn't been a "from the ground up" rewrite of it at all.

I think I'd be much more satisfied with Apple if what they released as leopard was a service pack sort of thing and treated their customers better for spending an arm and a leg on their hardware, but of course it wouldn't be Apple if they didn't, in fact, charge and arm and a leg for EVERYTHING!

 

[bearxor]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: bearxor
And Microsoft will never name their OS 'Windows 7', lest the Apple fanboys claim that 'X is better and 7'.

MS fanboys would reply with "Took less tries to get it right."

Haha, not really true though, right?

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: bearxor
Probably 2011-2012. Jobs said that OS X was the platform for the next decade when they unveiled it.

Just in time for Hitachi's 4TB hard drives

 

[timswim78]

Originally posted by: ChAoTiCpInOy
Well we're on 10.5 so there's .5 more to go so maybe another 5-10 years?

If Apple stuck to conventional numbering principles. However, we witnessed 10.4.11, so it is reasonable to expect OS X 10.11 and 10.12.

 

[Nothinman]

Haha, not really true though, right?

It's off-topic but if OS X really is the 10th major revision of Mac OS and we consider Vista and OS X MS and Apple "getting it right", respectively, then they're behind by 4 revisions currently since Vista is considered NT 6. But since NT started at 3.1 it's technically only 3 major revisions so then they're behind by 7. So by that logic it took Apple over twice as many major releases to "get it right".

If Apple stuck to conventional numbering principles. However, we witnessed 10.4.11, so it is reasonable to expect OS X 10.11 and 10.12.

There's nothing conventional about software versioning. There are as many versioning schemes as there are developers in the world. Just look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning#TeX

 

[Tyranicus]

I hate to break it to you, but Windows existed before NT.

 

[Nothinman]

I hate to break it to you, but Windows existed before NT.

Yea, I guess that's not really fair since OS X is essentially version 1.0 of the new codebase.

If I'm counting correctly there were only 6 major versions from Windows 1 to Windows ME. And that's if you count 95, 98 and ME all separately which probably shouldn't be done. So that would still leave MS at least one major revision less than Apple and 4 if you combine Win9X/ME.