Mac OS 11?

[fryke]

Just to add a bit more to it. Mac OS X is already marketed twofold inside the OS, so it *would* make some sense to say 'Mac OS X' is now at version '11.1.5', wouldn't it?

[simX]

Just so you guys all know, I'm "American", and I say "point" instead of "dot". "dot" just sounds idiotic. (No offense anyone.)

Anyway, I think the numbering system makes sense. "Mac OS X" is the name, but the version number starting at 10 just goes to show that Mac OS X is still a MACINTOSH operating system.

You just have to get used to it, but I tend to say "mak oh ess ten ten point one point three".

[googolplex]

Hmm I had forgotton that it wasn't called Mac OS before. The only thing that leads me to beleive that they will drop the EX for OS 11 is because then according to them it should read OS 10 11.0.... which is very very stupid sounding.

[nkuvu]

Personally, I read it as "mac oh ess ten version ten point one point three".

[simX]

Just so everyone knows (and it's made clear), this is the nomenclature of Apple's operating system:

"System 1" through "System 7.5.5"

"Mac OS 7.6" through "Mac OS 9.2.2"

"Mac OS X 10.0" through "Mac OS X 10.1.3"

Interesting, kind of.

And yeah, sometimes I say it with the "version" in between the "ten"s.

[googolplex]

uh oh the 10 or EX thread is moving in .

point just sounds so much better then dot btw. In math you don't read 5.7 as 5 dot 7 you read it 5 point 7. Likewise, it should be 10 point 1 point 3. But it is dot as in dot com. There's a difference.

[serpicolugnut]

No matter what version it's at, the product is called Mac OS X. Apple could change this down the road (the original OS was called "System", and didn't get the "Mac OS" moniker until "Mac OS 7.6").

I really think Apple will keep all major releases following the >
2002 > 10.2
2003 > 10.3
2004 > 10.4 numeration scheme.

It makes more sense from a marketing standpoint than saying Mac OS X version 11.5 or such.

However, in a few years, after OS 9 is dead and burried and nothing but a distant memory, Apple could conceivably drop the "X" from "Mac OS", and resume a 11,12,etc. numbering scheme.

[dlookus]

I really think Apple will keep all major releases following the >
2002 > 10.2
2003 > 10.3
2004 > 10.4 numeration scheme.

I really don't think they'll do this. From a marketing standpoint, it seems bad to expect people to pay for increments of .1.

This next version may very well be 10.5. But I guarantee we'll be seeing Mac OS XI before 2010 (or 2005 for that matter.)