Jaguar may not even be called 10.2

rharder

rharder

Do not read this sign.
Talking at the Genius Bar at an Apple store this weekend, I was told (by an employee) that they don't even know if Jaguar will be called 10.2, let alone how much it will cost to upgrade (that was my question).

Seems a bit early to call it XI though! And I can't imagine it being 10.1.6. Maybe it will be X.II!

-Rob
 
Going to Quartz Extreme seems like a way to big step to go 10.1.6, it's more likely that he was thinking about 10.5(which has been rumored)
 
[moderator's note]

Sorry rharder, I had to move your thread. It belongs in the "Mac News & Rumors Discussion" not the "Mac OSx System and Software" forum.

;)
 
Yet another discussion about this? Okay. I'll have to restate my thinking about this. It'll either be 10.2 or 10.5. The price will either be 'something less than 129$' or 129$ depending on the numbering. Or something inbetween (price wise). It will, however, not be 10.1.6, nor will it be a free upgrade.
 
Why is this such a surprise? Apple never said anything about it being called 10.2 or 10.5 or 10.6 1/2 or anything! The only thing Apple said was that it was called "Jaguar," and it's the next big update to Mac OS X. Perhaps Apple is trying to do away with version numbers in their software and start referring to their OS by the codenames... huh...
 
If it isn't going to be called 10.2 then why are they using 10.2 in all these beta releases?
Click to expand...

Well, because 10.2 might be their development branch and 10.5 their stable release.

The Linux kernel does something similiar. All odd numbered releases, 2.1, 2.3 2.5 and so on are development kernels while 2.0, 2.2 and 2.4 are the stable branch.

Who's to say, every company has their own numbering scheme. Netscape went from 4 to 6 and then 7 when esentially 6 and 7 are identical.

A lot of it is just marketing.

Here's some interesting history about every Mac OS release,



http://perso.club-internet.fr/jctrotot/Perso/History.html
 
No, no... 10.2 or 10.5 is rather like RedHat Linux 7.2 or 7.3, or SuSE Linux 8.0 or something. The Mac OS X Kernel is called Darwin and is at version 5.5 for 10.1 and at 6.0 for Jaguar. This seems to be the version numbering that was in place ever since NeXT-Step/OpenStep/Rhapsody/Mac OS X Server 1.x.

But like Mac OS 8.2dX turned into 8.5bX later in the development cycle, 10.2 6C73 could become a 10.5 6C90.
 
This release is a pretty big overhaul of 10.1. Much bigger infact than 10.1 was to 10.

I think depending on how satisfied Apple is with the gold master come September, will determin whether this release will be 10.2 or 10.5.

If they can shape Jaguar into everything they originally intended OS X to be, then I think a 10.5 release can be expected. They still have 10.5.1, 10.6, 7, 8, 9 and so on to make minor updates to it.

If Jaguar goes gold and the development team still has a lot more ideas to put into OS X at a later date, 10.2 would make more sense because they'd want to spread out the release numbering to incorporate more over time.

The core technologies of OS X are supposed to last Apple for the next decade according to Steve Jobs, so they wont want to be busting out with a major release, OS XI(?), anytime soon.

Not to say OS 11, 12 and 13 or whatever they intend to call them wont be based on OS X, but I'm sure Apple wants to give the public ample time to get accustom to their new little beauty, X.
 
What is Multidesk? Is that like virtual desktops in most Linux desktop environments?

That would be awesome.
 
No, no... 10.2 or 10.5 is rather like RedHat Linux 7.2 or 7.3, or SuSE Linux 8.0 or something.
Click to expand...

RedHat Linux only releases a major number change when binary compatibility is broken.

It has little to do with the Linux kernel core and more to do with GNU libc.
 
Originally posted by azosx
What is Multidesk? Is that like virtual desktops in most Linux desktop environments?

That would be awesome.
Click to expand...

I don't really know either - i've read it the first time on their page and i don't know from where they want to know that.. but it would be great, yes :)
 
Maybe they'll call it OS X 2002. Or OS X Pro. Or maybe OS X 88, I mean 3.2, I mean 5.0, I mean... =)

-Rob
 
"The 'X', which not only stands for the character or the Roman number, but also for the word 'cross', is no longer needed as of this day. With Jag-Wire, we finally kill Mac OS 9 for the consumer. Thus, we give Jaguar the following name: Mac OS 11. The clock is done, we're one time around - and the jump to the new operating system base has been made." S.J., MWNY.
 
They should call it Mac OS 1

Because, at least on my clock, that's the first number after one rotation.

;)

Calling the OS 1 would be a bold move too. It would signify the switch and re-birth of the OS.

When the mass population hears Mac OS 11.... they're going to think... hmm, okay that makes sense, 11 comes after 10, 9, 8, etc...

Very easy to mix them all together. That's why when I talk to my PC friends I say Mac OS "X" (the letter not the number). Then they say "what OS is that?"

Then I can tell them how different it is from Mac OS9.

Even though it was Mac OS 10, a lot of people called it Mac OSx. So it seems to me that some people might think Mac OS11, isn't that big of a deal at all once they forget about Mac OSx.

Apple has done a poor job switching people to OSx. They are expecting the "buzz" of Unix to sell the OS, and up until now it has. But now it's time to think of the long haul. Maybe their gearing up for that. Seems like this "Switch" phylosophy could easily turn into "and here's why" dogma.

"The only OS, the 'One' OS... Mac OS 1"
 
Does anyone remember System 1? Was there a System 1? I first remember System 6 I think.

-Rob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top