# Mac OS 11?



## jozo (Apr 13, 2002)

Will there be a Mac OS 11

Wot will it look like

Callled Mac OS Y????



Wht do you think....


----------



## ulrik (Apr 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by jozo _
> *Will there be a Mac OS 11*



definitely



> *Wot will it look like*



I guess it will be a modified, enhanced MacOS 10, maybe with many new standards (which we can only dream of now) built in, but I am sure it will be the same architecture than OS 10. Maybe a Cocoa finder 



> *Callled Mac OS Y????*



Defintely NOT!

Maybe MacOS X++


----------



## Nummi_G4 (Apr 13, 2002)

OS 7 >  OS 8 >  OS 9 >  OS X >  OS 11 >  OS 12...


----------



## ulrik (Apr 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Nummi_G4 _
> *OS 7 >  OS 8 >  OS 9 >  OS X >  OS 11 >  OS 12... *



Yeah, I know, X++ was just a joke. Remember the programming language C? Instead of calling the second version 2.0, they called it "++", which is the programming instruction for an increment, equal to C + 1, in this case, X + 1.


----------



## Brewster (Apr 13, 2002)

I think Apple will hold on to X for a while and go up .1 each year. We will probably see 10.2 at MWNY rather than 10.5.


----------



## wdw_ (Apr 13, 2002)

I think OS XI will have some sort of 3D interface. You know you sit down at a park bench, put on a pair of cool looking sun glasses, grab your stylus that tracks xyz coordinates and get to work. The machine would have someway to let see both your work and your surrounding environment and your computer in full detail.

It could happen.

I'm pretty sure Mac OS X is going to be here for, at the very least, another 5-7 years. Didn't Steve say that Mac OS X is going to last us a whole decade?


----------



## googolplex (Apr 13, 2002)

I think he meant OS's based off OS X's unix core. If its going to be called OS X for 10 years then it better be called OS EX not OS 10


----------



## dricci (Apr 13, 2002)

I think I saw a beta of OS 11 floating around Carracho!


----------



## LordOphidian (Apr 13, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ulrik _
> *
> 
> Yeah, I know, X++ was just a joke. Remember the programming language C? Instead of calling the second version 2.0, they called it "++", which is the programming instruction for an increment, equal to C + 1, in this case, X + 1. *



Not quite, the latest version of the C standard is C99.

C++ is a diffrent language, intended by its creater to be the successor to C.

Also, wouldn't Mac OS 11 be, OS XI 11.0?


----------



## googolplex (Apr 13, 2002)

heh mac os XI 10.0 thats good


----------



## ulrik (Apr 14, 2002)

> _Originally posted by LordOphidian _
> *
> 
> Not quite, the latest version of the C standard is C99.
> ...



Still, the idea behind the "++" naming was that it is a "next and better" C, the incremented C, C 2.0. I know that C and C++ are completely different (procedural vs. object oriented), I just wanted to explain my joke with X++. I didn't want to imply that C++ is the logical next version of C, which, of course, is wrong.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Apr 14, 2002)

I think Apple may stick with the OS X moniker for as long as it can, and label it's BIG releases like this...

10.1 > 2001
10.2 > 2002
10.3 > 2003
10.4 > 2004, etc. etc.

This seems to be the direction they are headed, and it makes some sense.

I guess we'll find out at WWDC or this summer what naming path they are going to take. If the next update is 10.5, then they are headed down a more traditional numerical versioning scheme.


----------



## fryke (Apr 14, 2002)

Mac OS 7 brought multitasking (eliminating MultiFinder)
Mac OS 8 brought the Platinum Appearance
Mac OS 9 brought a Multiuser environment
Mac OS X brought a whole new system, really
Mac OS 11 will bring 'something' new.
So while OS X gets updated and fixed, it'll be 10.x.x, version 11 will be a bigger update, maybe in 2003 (it's also a marketing issue, isn't it).


----------



## Alexandert (Apr 15, 2002)

Dont think it will be XI or something. Think it will be:

MacOS X (11.0 build???????????)

All the other one look xxxxxx!


----------



## ulrik (Apr 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Alexandert _
> *
> MacOS X (11.0 build???????????)
> *



That would make no sense since I honstly think that OS X was compiled more than 11 times.


----------



## BBenve (Apr 15, 2002)

Sorry if this bugs you.. BUT YOU AGAIN??? same post???? damn... i am sorry but i have to say that ... MAN..... GET A LIFE..is the 4th Post with the same exact topic... are you expecting different answers??


Sorry again if it bugs you


----------



## ulrik (Apr 15, 2002)

Do you mean me? What's wrong discussing the answers?


----------



## Tigger (Apr 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Alexandert _
> *Dont think it will be XI or something. Think it will be:
> 
> MacOS X (11.0 build???????????)
> ...


I also think this will be the name.

I remember how stupid I thought this is when I heard Apple wants the 'X' to be pronounced '10' and saw the naming "Mac OS X 10.0"

That is just stupid. What do these Apple marketing guys think?

I am really looking forward to "Mac OS Ten Eleven-Point-Ouh"


----------



## dricci (Apr 15, 2002)

It's Dot, not Point. This isn't AOL


----------



## ulrik (Apr 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by dricci _
> *It's Dot, not Point. This isn't AOL  *



Yeah, but Germany (where he posts from)  We Germans often do the fault to translate it with point, since we say "Zehn Punkt Null", which - theoretically - translates to ten point zero. We are not used to the fact that you say "dot" to the comma or point in such a case.


----------



## uoba (Apr 15, 2002)

in the UK


----------



## googolplex (Apr 15, 2002)

Dot? I say point and I'm in Canada. 10 dot 1? Its 10 point 2!

*grumbles*

of course we should all say dot because thats what Americans must say 

kidding


----------



## fryke (Apr 15, 2002)

America rules us all anyway. One day we'll all be Americans. The world's degenerating. Hmm... If we stop saying 'dot', maybe there will be a point.com decade ahead of us?

Back on topic: It was a baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad move to call 10.0 'Mac OS X 10.0'. I hope they (Apple) will find a nice way out before it *really* backfires. "Mac OS Ten 10 dot what? Sounds clever..."


----------



## googolplex (Apr 15, 2002)

> America rules us all anyway. One day we'll all be Americans. The world's degenerating. Hmm... If we stop saying 'dot', maybe there will be a point.com decade ahead of us?



sigh. typical... 



> Back on topic: It was a baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad move to call 10.0 'Mac OS X 10.0'. I hope they (Apple) will find a nice way out before it *really* backfires. "Mac OS Ten 10 dot what? Sounds clever..."



yeah it was a bad move. Its confusing and as you may have seen in the 10 or EX thread some people take it way too seriously. I think they will probably just go to OS 11 the double 1s look kind of cool.


----------



## dlookus (Apr 15, 2002)

I definitely think it will be XI.
Apple (unlike Microsoft) believes in consistency in naming conventions.



> America rules us all anyway. One day we'll all be Americans. The world's degenerating. Hmm... If we stop saying 'dot', maybe there will be a point.com decade ahead of us?



You know, for a while it seemed like we were getting all of this stupid "my country is better than yours" crap behind us.


----------



## googolplex (Apr 15, 2002)

X wasn't consistant with 9, although I like X don't you think they might change back to numbers instead of roman numerals?

And yes my country is better then yours is stupid. Arrogance and ignorance annoys me, so lets talk about OS 11 instead!


----------



## ebolag4 (Apr 15, 2002)

I'm a Texan!

So there!!!!!!


----------



## Alexandert (Apr 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *
> Back on topic: It was a baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad move to call 10.0 'Mac OS X 10.0'. I hope they (Apple) will find a nice way out before it *really* backfires. "Mac OS Ten 10 dot what? Sounds clever..." *



So what do you suggest Apple to do??? 

Do you want them to change the letters everytime there is a new Update??? Nononononno. Please not that would confuse me even more!

(BTW I think it is Mac OS X ten-dot-one)


----------



## dlookus (Apr 15, 2002)

> X wasn't consistant with 9, although I like X don't you think they might change back to numbers instead of roman numerals?


True, but I think they did this to emphasize that there is a major difference. X is a whole new operating system.


----------



## xoot (Apr 15, 2002)

I don't think they will do anything like this:

P.S.: I can do better than that. I am working on some stuff, so I had to do some mediocre representation


----------



## ulrik (Apr 15, 2002)

One word for that task: AquaTint


----------



## fryke (Apr 15, 2002)

Sorry about the Anti-Americanism.

The 'X' term of course also helps identifying Mac OS as a UN*X operating system. But then it doesn't make sense that Steve's stressing the 'ten' spelling.

I'm a geek, so why not use a packaging title like:

Mac OS X Build 6F67

Okay, bad idea... My guess is just a twofold brand name. It's 'Mac OS X' and the version might be 'Mac OS 11.0.4'. Over time, the 'X' will be dropped and it'll be 'Mac OS' again. After all, the consumer won't have to know about the change from 9 to 10 in a few years. Or do new users nowadays know about the 'Copland' and 'Gershwin' projects? Do they know that there was a time before Antialiasing in the Mac OS (introduced with Mac OS 8.5) or do they even know that the 'Mac OS' moniker was only introduced *after* System 7.5? (Yes, before, the Mac OS was plainly named 'System' with the version number...)


----------



## fryke (Apr 15, 2002)

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 (Apr 15, 2002)

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 (Apr 15, 2002)

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 (Apr 15, 2002)

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


----------



## simX (Apr 15, 2002)

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 (Apr 15, 2002)

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 (Apr 15, 2002)

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 (Apr 15, 2002)

> 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.)


----------



## xoot (Apr 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by 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. *



Uh oh, the point or dot thread is moving in .


----------



## ebolag4 (Apr 16, 2002)

I predict that in the not so distanct future, President Bill Gates and his evil government will complete a hostile takeover of the computer operating system software industry and pass a bill making it illegal to use any other marketing firm other than one Micro$haft chooses.

Said marketing geniuses will name the forthcoming Macintosh OS "Sub-Windows X2" or some idiot thing.

Either that, or President Steve Jobs will rename the OS "Steve OS" and outlaw all others.

We now return you to reality.

(Sorry guys, it's early and I didn't sleep much last night!)


----------



## Alexandert (Apr 16, 2002)

I say:  

Mäc Ouh Äs ÄX Tän datt one!    


And I will say:  

Mäc Ouh Äs Äx Ielewenn dot ouh!


----------



## Jayem (Apr 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Alexandert _
> *I say:
> 
> Mäc Ouh Äs ÄX Tän datt one!
> ...


----------



## ulrik (Apr 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Alexandert _
> *I
> Mäc Ouh Äs ÄX Tän datt one!
> /B]*


*

"Äx"? *


----------



## LordCoven (Apr 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by dlookus _
> *
> 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.) *




... people seemed happy paying for the 10.1 increment (me included) ... so why not 10.2 (I know I will) ;-))

C


----------



## googolplex (Apr 16, 2002)

I didn't pay for it. I got a burned copy from an apple employee


----------



## LordCoven (Apr 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by googolplex _
> *I didn't pay for it. I got a burned copy from an apple employee  *




Once again proving: Its not what you know, its who you know ;-)))

C


----------



## Alexandert (Apr 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ulrik _
> *
> 
> "Äx"?  *



English


----------



## twyg (Apr 16, 2002)

jozo... 

E-mail me. I'd like to talk to you.
twyg@mac.com


----------



## dlookus (Apr 16, 2002)

Twyg,
I don't know why you want to talk to Jozo (I have an idea but...), but I feel the need to point out that he hasn't posted in this thread since starting it.


----------



## Alexandert (Apr 17, 2002)

I think he hiding!


----------



## fryke (Apr 17, 2002)

apropos long threads about version numberings.

What do you want this summer:

a) Mac OS X 10.2 with a few bug fixes and features from OS 9 for 20$
b) Mac OS X 10.5 with a slew of new features for 69$ (upgrade from 10.1) and 129$ (full version)?

I'm for the latter, and I don't really care what it'll be called. For price & marketing, I guess that it won't make a difference whether it's called .2 or.5 - people will see from the PR whether it's a real new big version (10.1 was seen as such!).

Let's say Mac OS 11.0 is about to appear in March 2003 (two year anniversary of OS X), whether it'll be called X Version 11 or just Mac OS 11. As I think the jump to 11 will have to be a big one, although not as big as 9 to X, but maybe as big as 7 to 8, it might be interesting to talk about what features we would want from an operating system in early 2003. My list right now:

- Innovative file system that rocks everything available up to date
- Full integration of FTP and WebDAV into the Finder (and fast)
- Full support throughout the system for multiprocessor systems (not just dual)
- Better Graphite theme. While I think Apple won't open up for 'themes', I'd want an even more professional environment for working. Aqua is okay for iMacs and Game-Players, but Graphite is not enough for the graphics pro at heart. Less is more here. (Less transparency, no jumping icons and the like).
- Full integration of an X Window System, Apple could also pave the way for even easier porting of X-apps to 'real' Cocoa apps. Provide not only Objective-C but also C++ ways.


----------



## joeth (Jun 7, 2002)

I found it!!!

Add some suggestions, now you all know the features of X.2, you should be able to predict more about OS 11.... Make this thread the best ever!


----------



## Zenzefiloan (Jun 7, 2002)

MAC OS Z!!!!!

HEHEHEHE


----------



## dave17lax (Jun 7, 2002)

I found some info about this at this link


----------



## joeth (Jun 7, 2002)

ER.... the link doesn't work


----------



## xaqintosh (Jun 7, 2002)

you don't quite get it, the link says "wwwpointapplepointcom/macosx"

also, I am american, and for websites I say "apple dot com" and for OSes I say "Mac OS 10 point 2"


----------



## joeth (Jun 8, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Alexandert _
> *I think he hiding!    *



Do I look like I'm hiding???


----------



## Thaw (Jun 8, 2002)

My New Username...... Joeth is aged, but I have to start again from 0 posts!!!! Sob Sob!


----------



## edX (Jun 8, 2002)

Thaw/Joeth - threre is no need to call names. please refrain from the use of the word stupid when referring to another site member. Referring to what they did as being stupid is fine. Referring to them as being stupid in not.  Understand?



> How stupid is dave17lax? Putting wwwdotappledotcom/macosx is completely stupid and wastes peoples time.....


----------



## Thaw (Jun 9, 2002)

Sorry Ed     

Thaw


----------



## Thaw (Jun 9, 2002)

Ed Spruilel. 

Did you delete my 'joeth' username?
I went back to edit that post you didn't approve of and found someone had disabled my ACCOUNT. I'd also decided to switch back to joeth for other reasons.


Please reply

Joe


----------



## edX (Jun 9, 2002)

hey, you don't need to apologize to me.

but dave might appreciate it.


----------



## edX (Jun 9, 2002)

no Thaw, it wasn't me. It's not my job to decide who stays and goes. that would be Admin's domain. You will need to ask him. I appreciate your making the effort to go back and edit though.


----------



## Thaw (Jun 9, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *hey, you don't need to apologize to me.
> 
> but dave might appreciate it. *



Sorry Dave...!  

Ed, how can I contact the Administrator?


----------



## xaqintosh (Jun 9, 2002)

PM him


----------



## joeth (Jun 11, 2002)

I'm back now.... all sorted....

Back on Topic.

Mac OS 10.2 is out September (am I right?), so the next update will probably 10.5, so looking at it logically, 10.5 could jump to Mac OS XI, or it could go 10.6, 10.7, 10.8, 10.9, (11) XI. Whether it'll be called XI remains to be seen, what do you all think....


----------



## bubbajim (Jun 11, 2002)

10.2 may not make it out till October.

I feel this may be so because of their Public Preview of Quicktime 6 ends in October.  Though I would think there would be some overlap in this so it could still be possible that 10.2 would be out a month ealier then the expiration of their preview release of Quicktime.

And I believe that Apple will stay inline with their numbering system and make the next OS 'Mac OS 11'.  Anything else just does not look right and would be a marketing hell for Apple if they change their naming so dramatically that people get confused and lose interest in their product.

You have to remember that there is a vast majority of computer users out there that have a short attention span and will forget a product name if it gets too complicated.  I do it all the time and I may of bought the product if I only remembered what it was called.


----------



## xaqintosh (Jun 11, 2002)

I think it will be "mac OS X 11.0, although I would prefer "Mac OS X 2.0"


----------



## joeth (Jun 12, 2002)

I can't wait for 10.... I agree XI would be a bit of a bad move.

System 11 maybe the name..... System 6 and 7 were names before the New Mac OS 8,9,10, and then X. It's not likely to change back, but, it remains to be seen.


----------



## PhilH (Jun 13, 2002)

Mac OS XP?


----------



## joeth (Jun 23, 2002)

Ha ha!!!!! 

That's funny!

Yeah, microsoft would love that.... in fact Apple if your listening call the next release Mac OS XP, Microsoft copy you so copy them.

He he!


----------



## serpicolugnut (Jun 23, 2002)

> 10.2 may not make it out till October.



Doubtful. Software schedules can slip, but since Apple set the "final" release date of Mac OS X 10.0 for March 24th, 2000, they have been on target with their announcements, even if they are off by a day or so.

Jobs said late summer, and that means at the latest, end of September (as 10.1 was announced for late summer and shipped September 19th). I'm sure we'll get a more solid announcement at Macworld, but the way the builds are coming, and the rumblings from Apple insiders seem to suggest that 10.5 will be released earlier than expected, not later.


----------



## nichrome (Jun 23, 2002)

Firstly, I agree with the post ^above^. Making October the expiry month for QT 6 PR doesn't mean October is going to be the release date for Jaguar. Apple is merely giving itself and users time to transition from the preview version to the final version of QT 6, which will ship once the MPEG-4 licensing issues are resolved. Arguing that QT 6 PR's expiry date has anything to do with Mac OS X or Jaguar, an entirely different product, is shortsighted.

Secondly, Apple is referring to Jaguar as 10.2 internally. It might turn out to be 10.5 once we get closer to release, but at this point it's incorrect to refer to the next update as 10.5. It's safer to just use the codename, like Apple.

Thirdly, the absolute final deadline for Jaguar is August 22. Apple will most likely ship product sooner than that, since morale within the Jag team is high and development is progressing smoothly, but if things go ugly, this is the date we will see Jag at the very latest.

And finally, Apple will never, ever call the next major version number revision "Mac OS X 11.0". The X stands for Ten, and that would make it "Mac OS Ten Eleven" (Mac OS 1011). Very messy and confusing. I'm willing to bet that Apple either moves back to Arabic numbering from the (very ugly and confusing) Roman numerals, or comes up with an entirely new versioning scheme altogether.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Jun 23, 2002)

> Thirdly, the absolute final deadline for Jaguar is August 22



Where did you get that date? The only mention of a timetable has been "late summer", which means anytime before September 21st (last day of summer).



> Secondly, Apple is referring to Jaguar as 10.2 internally. It might turn out to be 10.5 once we get closer to release, but at this point it's incorrect to refer to the next update as 10.5. It's safer to just use the codename, like Apple.



True, but we all know Apple isn't using 10.2 as the release title. It's a marketing thing, but releasing as 10.2 doesn't really signify it being that big an upgrade, and Apple wants to be able to convince people that it's worth their $99 (or more). Personally, I'd like Apple to keep each upgrade at a .1, .2, .3, etc, in line with what year it's released (.1 = 2001, .2=2002, .3=2003, etc), but I doubt they will follow that numbering scheme...



> And finally, Apple will never, ever call the next major version number revision "Mac OS X 11.0". The X stands for Ten, and that would make it "Mac OS Ten Eleven" (Mac OS 1011). Very messy and confusing. I'm willing to bet that Apple either moves back to Arabic numbering from the (very ugly and confusing) Roman numerals, or comes up with an entirely new versioning scheme altogether.



I'm hoping that by the time Apple comes up with whatever follows 10.5, that they dump the "X" from the main marketing name anyway. "Mac OS" is just fine. By the next major release, it will be the only shipping Mac OS, and chances are it will be the only Apple OS that will boot on the current hardware (rumor has it the new Pro Macs being released this summer will not boot OS 9, except through Classic)...


----------



## kommakazi (Jun 26, 2002)

It's not pronounced ten-dot-o! I've never heard ANYONE say that here in the US or otherwise. It sounds dumb and if someone did say it i'd probably laugh at them. ten-point-o sounds much better and is the correct way!


----------



## xaqintosh (Jun 26, 2002)

Actually, I think steve Jobs pronounces it with "dot" instead of point. As I said before, "dot" for the internet and "point" for software


----------



## nichrome (Jun 27, 2002)

> _Originally posted by serpicolugnut _
> *
> 
> Where did you get that date? The only mention of a timetable has been "late summer", which means anytime before September 21st (last day of summer).*


*I work for Finnish Mac publication Macsanomat and let's just say that the birdies sing louder on the inside.*


----------

