the linguistics of X


I think it's interesting that we all seem to have decided that it's going to be OS X 1.0 (as opposed to, say, OS X.0). If Apple had decided to use arabic and not roman numerals, it would be OS 10.0, not OS 10 1.0, right?

Not that it's a big point or anything. Heck, I still call it "oh ess ex"--just can't bring myself to say "oh ess ten". Is there a Betty Ford clinic for reprobates like me?
Now that you mention it...

A Betty Ford clinic for those with the IsayItWrong disease would rake it in. I suppose you'd have to rely heavily on friends and family to commit(enrole) the victims of said disease though.

The X(That's a 10!) step program to saying OSX right..

1) admit you have a problem.
2) admit it again, this time say it like you mean it.
3) come to group meetings weekly for support.
4) apologize to the poor Operating System.
5) apologize again, this time say it like you mean it.
6) practice saying other roman numerals.
7) use roman numerals wherever possible and avoid saying things like XWindows.
8) in front of group on your third week tell everyone how long it's been since you said "oh ess ex".
9) in front of group on your fifth week tell everyone how many times you've said "oh ess ten".
10) re-admit yourself.
The problem I see is that if the nomenclature is indeed to
be OS X 1.0, 1.1, etc, it gets really clunky and dumb sounding
to say "Oh Ess ten one point one" -- in english, you generally
don't run up numbers against eachother. "Oh Ess ex one point one"
sounds a lot nicer, and is easier on the tongue. Too bad Apple has decreed
it to be incorrect....
Actually it is going to be called OS X Final and OS X.1 from what I have heard.
How about this - So far we've seen four alpha (aka DP) releases, and one or two beta, depending on whether you count the developers-only update.

Given all this, wouldn't it be nice if Apple stuck to the letters-not-numbers thing, and released OS X gamma, then delta, and so forth?

This would also make for some pretty CD cases - if they actually printed the nice Greek letters on the labels:

OS X γ
OS X &delta
OS X &epsilon
Originally posted by VGZ
Actually it is going to be called OS X Final and OS X.1 from what I have heard.

Aargh! No, say it ain't so! That has got to be the worst
option possible. I take back all the bad things I say
about X 1.1 !
Oh well, maybe I'll learn to love that, too.
Personally, scruffy's idea sounds cool... but then what about maintenance releases? OS X d.1?
maybe delta.alpha?

It seems like the Apple marketing guys forgot their burnt offerings
to the roman name gods, and are thus being punished.


[Edited by zpincus on 12-18-2000 at 09:33 PM]
>>I think it\'s interesting that we all seem to have decided that it\'s going to be OS X 1.0 (as opposed to, say, OS X.0). If Apple had decided to use arabic and not roman numerals, it would be OS 10.0, not OS 10 1.0, right?

hi ya all
I was bothered (a little) by ev. sayin OS X 1.0 as well,
it sounds daft.

and OS 9 became OS 9.04 and then OS 9.1
so I think it will go like that..
OS X.1 or OS 10.1
To me OS X 1.0 just sounds a bit weird.
And what by the time of OS 11?
Will they now stick to the roman numerals? OS XI ?
Personally , I think they choose an X instaed of 10
becoz it looks cool. (it does!)I think many people think of it as the letter X instaed as to the roman numeral.
(I find myself saying OS Ex a lot)
greetings, rene
We should demand it be called Oh Ess Ex Version One

It isn't MacOS and it isn't OPENSTEP, it's a completely new OS. If you call it mac call it Mac Oh Ess Ex Version One and not Mac Oh Ess Ten.

Apple doesn't have to define how things are pronounced. They tried to market SCSI as being pronounced "sexy" but that didn't catch on.
I think this thread may be dead, but I had to through in my two cents...
We call seem to be trying to guess the naming convention for OSX based on the conventional naming system that Mac and almost all other software manufactures have used. For example:

FlurbOS 1.0 -First release
FlurbOS 1.01 -Minor revision
FlurbOS 1.2 -Major revision
FlurbOS 2.0 -New release

This makes sense and works well, and thus we are assuming that apple will in some way stick to this naming convention. Unfortunately, the break from standard naming conventions for a marketing ploy is not unprecedented.

Windows 3.0
Windows 3.1
Windows 3.11
Windows 95?????????????????????

Either a: MAJOR version jump or b: MAJOR marketing ploy...
Considering the only drastic change was a new interface, I’m guessing b. Microsplat’s solution for the revision problem in this system seems to be... "We just wont show it" The only way you can find it is by looking at the actual name where you see Win95a, b, c, and so on. Who knows in a few months we may be using MacOS Xb or some such thing. I would hope for X.0.1 but that looks funky two. I also have another opinion on why Mac went with the X. X as in uniX. X as in X Windows. Or even X as in neXt. X is by far the coolest letter, and for those of us who tend to linger in Unix land, it is defiantly attractive.

Back on the topic of revision naming, I think that history has shown when a company chooses to drop numeric version numbers for letters, the revision numbering usually goes on the window. (never saw a Windows NT.1 did ya?). My thought is that apple will either eventually drop the X for 10 or we will never see minor revision numbering again.

To avoid all these naming problems lets agree on the following:

If steve named OS X with an "X" (ex) because of its unix based lets call it "os ess ex".
(I am FOR this, since I think that this is what jobs was thinking when naming this product, and it makes much more sense IMHO)


if jobs really means OS X as on OS 10 lets just forget the arabic and roman numerals and go with ancient greek numerals where 10 = K (OS Kappa has a nice ring to it... no ??? LOL)
In all seriousness thought I think that OS X (os ess ex) makes more sense.

As for Windows and Windows NT they are two different animals (even thought they are compatible) and their numbering doesnt really matter between one or the other. And as for NT 1... the original incarnation of NT was "Microsoft Operating System/2"

As I was reading through the Wincent review of the post PB builds that apple has been releasing, I noticed a small controversy which may give us a clue to what apples plans are for the X.0.1/10.0.1 revision naming problem. As I’m sure we are all aware, apple legal has repeatedly made Wincent remove their screenshots from 4k17 and up. The controversy was over a screenshot provided by a reader of the Wincent reviews that showed the about this computer screen from one of the builds. I think it was the 4k33 build that in the about box, it shows the os version to be 10.0.1. As of the next build, the version was back to 10.0.0. While this is of little importance(or is it?) the main thing I think we can gleam from this is that apple probably plans on calling all OSX(as in ten) releases just that-- OS X. Then in the about it will be referred to by its proper revision number. For example the initial release will show OS X on the box, but show 10.0.0 in the about box, then the first revision will show OS X on the box, and 10.0.1 in the about box. My question will be what will they do in os 11? OS XI?

I think that apple will probably change the OS name at somepoint.
Single-digit numbers are fine for software, but once you reach the double-digit mark...
doent it become a bit...weird ? (I dont mean double digit as "windows 95")
In just over 2 decades apple has managed to release 10 versions of it's OS
first called "Apple System x.x.x" and now called "MacOS x.x.x".
Can anyone picture in 20 years from now when you buy your new Mac G5000
and you have MacOS version 20 (Or MacOS XX or MacOS L (lamda) ) ).

Internally I think apple will continue to use the current numbering system because it makes
more sense, but for the might change the naming.

my $2/100

hehe, or if they REALLY want to go with the unix thing they can start calling their releases things like 'patato' or 'cartman'. :)