Jaguar may not even be called 10.2

I wish I remember where I read this... but for the life of me I can't. I read somewhere about the investment that Apple had in this OS was going to stick around for a LONG time. And that they were possibly (this may have been a speculation by the author) going to be moving the OS with a .1 update each year. In between times, they would be releasing the 10.x.x "point" releases.

So if this thinking is correct, then next year we will see 10.3, 10.3.1, 10.3.2 and so on... Just like we have up until now. We had 10.0, then all the point releases up until 10.1. Then we have had several bumps to our current status of 10.1.5.

So - I have no proof to base this on -- just something I have read within the past month or two. But it seems likely to me anyway. :)
 
I wish I remember where I read this... but for the life of me I can't. I read somewhere about the investment that Apple had in this OS was going to stick around for a LONG time. And that they were possibly (this may have been a speculation by the author) going to be moving the OS with a .1 update each year. In between times, they would be releasing the 10.x.x "point" releases.
Click to expand...

When asked how long OS X was expected to carry Apple, Steve Jobs replied with something like, for the next decade. So what you're saying does make sense.
 
Originally posted by rharder
Does anyone remember System 1? Was there a System 1? I first remember System 6 I think.

-Rob
Click to expand...

The first Macintosh 128k's were shipped with Mac OS 1.0, but in very short time they reached version 6.0. I'd love to have a Mac 128k to test out the different OS versions and find the differences :)
 
Who cares if it's going to called 10.2 or 10.5? Apple should follow the point releases sequentially. The introduction of Quartz Extreme shouldn't imply that 10.2 NEEDS to be increased to 10.5. Oh my! THAT is a MAJOR ADVANCE and NEEDS to have a higher point release that signifies the importance of this advancement. Bullcrap! A new feature is a new feature and point releases should just follow sequentially. Many people commenting on this thread resemble the Greek philosophers of years past arguing over how many teeth a horse should have. "Well, it is a bigger animal, so it should have 50 teeth." But the counter argument is that "the horse is not as an intelligent as a human and should have fewer teeth than a human, perhaps 16". Bullcrap, just open the beast's mouth and count the teeth. When the numbers are missing in between the point releases, it makes one think: "What happened to the other releases?" "Where they failures?" It's all a numbers game to market the product. Just like the Audi 5000 and the Pontiac 6000. The Pontiac is a 1000 better so it must be a superior car. Ah...No! Stupid stupid arguments.
 
I remember that for programming purposes, something significant happened at System 4 I think. A lot of programs would run on System 4 and later, but who ran anything but System 6 in those days?

Bonus points if you actually used the Multi-Finder.

-Rob
 
Well, it could actually be called OS 11, because of the interface changes. Never before has the interface changed this much from a x.1 to x.2 release, neither a x.5 release. I've changed my mind after seeing the 6C75 screenshots, why should they call it 10.5? 11 would make much more money and PR. Also, when Apple announced Puma, they said it was going to be 10.1. So why haven't they mentioned 10.2 or 10.5 yet? :)

I could be really wrong, but I really doubt it's going to be called 10.5. It simply doesn't make any sense to me, and it's not logical at all. The most logical would actually be 11 in my opinion. Or, if they are going to follow a completely different version numbersing scheme than on classis OS releases, they could call it 10.2, the next major release 10.3 and so on.
 
According to CNet, Jaguar is going to be officially known as OS X 10.2.

I think chemistry_geek's argument is essentially right – version numbers are just marketing schemes.

However, I think Apple is going to start putting .1 releases as the major upgrades with Mac OS X. Mac OS X 10.1 was a MAJOR release. Jaguar will be, too.

The kicker is that the naming scheme is kind of weird right now, and Apple wants to avoid the "Mac OS 11"/"Mac OS X 11" problem for as long as possible. However, there is something I must point out. The "X" in "Mac OS X" is NOT A VERSION NUMBER. It is part of the name of the operating system, signifying that Mac OS X is basically unrelated to Mac OS 9.x.x in every way except for the ease-of-use.

Therefore, "Mac OS X" will always remain in the name. And I predict that Apple will probably (if it ever comes to it) name the full point revision "Mac OS X 11.0", because as I said, the "X" is part of the operating system's name. It's still confusing, though, so Apple wants to take its time in letting everybody adjust to the new naming convention (because Mac OS X 10.1.5 is still kind of a weird convention, because you have a new operating system name, but a version number that represents the Classic operating system revisions as well).

Just my 2¢.
 
Originally posted by RyanLang
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...

Are you serious? Have you just moved to Macs or something?

OK, for the millionth time.

8.0 --free--> 8.1
8.1 --devseed--> 8.2
8.2 --retail--> 8.5
8.5 --free--> 8.6
8.6 --devseed--> 8.7
8.7 --retail--> 9.0
9.0 --free--> 9.1
9.1 --free--> 9.2 *exception*

+0.1 increments always follow retail releases. They only ever do *1* 0.1 release before going to the next retail release. The only except was 9.2 which was a 0.1 release AFTER a whole new version shipped. Unless Apple is releasing 11.0, don't count on a 10.2. It *WILL* be 10.5 and it will be $129. What do you think Apple is using to pay for iTools, iApps, and iQuartzExtreme?

oh yeah and if you go to the downloads at /Apple_Support_Area/Apple_Software_Updates/English-North_American/Macintosh/System

You will see these directories:

Mac_OS_8.1_Update/
Mac_OS_8.5.1_Update/
Mac_OS_8.6_Update/
Mac_OS_9.0.4_Update/
Mac_OS_9.1_Update/

Note these are the free updates. *Exception to this was 7.6 and 9.2*
 
QUESTION: does it really matter what they call it? 10.2, 10.5, 11.0, XP (j/k), its all the same! as long as the product is good, lets stop worrying about what it'll be called !!
 
I found this at news.com.

The new version, code-named Jaguar and officially known as Mac OS X 10.2, is now expected to ship in early August, barring unforeseen difficulties, said sources familiar with Apple's product strategy.
Click to expand...

Odd.
 
Well, *I* am a 'source familiar with Apple's product strategy'. And so maybe are you. Fact is, all those sources don't actually *know* what Steve will tell us when he enters the stage at day 1 of MWNY. *IF* Jaguar is planned to be released by August, there's still enough time to change the version numbering of the builds until a Golden Master is chosen.

It's all speculation. We might think this, we might think that. terran74 is right about the historical facts. And yes, we've told them many times. Even in this thread. But whether Jaguar will be 'normal' according to history (like Mac OS 8.5 or 9.0) or an exception (like 7.6 or 9.2) - we just don't know. Maybe Apple wants to keep the X for a while longer - until *really* nobody uses Mac OS 9.x any more. Maybe they want to get over the X and will go to 11 faster (or 'normal', so Jag would be 10.5, then there'd be a 10.6 and then 11).

If it wasn't Steve Jobs who told you how it will be, then you don't know. Everything else is speculation. History would suggest that Jaguar will be 10.5.
 
Well, but there is a difference between Mac OS X and classic Mac OS version numbering. Before OS X, x.0 and x.5 releases were the major releases, while x.0-x.1 and x.1-x.5 upates were mostly bug fix releases, maybe with some small new features.
Mac OS X 10.1 was much more than a bug fix release. It had lots of new features, it was much faster, actually the 10.0.4-10.1 update had more changes than the 8.6-9.0 update, still they only called it 10.1. However, with the new features came new bugs, and I'm sure that 10.1 had more bugs than 10.0.4.
Then they used +x.x.1 releases mainly as bug fix releases, just like e.g. the 8.0-8.1 update.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top