Discussion: Should Yosemite have been called OSXI

[UncleSchnitty]

Just as a point of discussion do you think enough has changed to justify a change to OS11? Personally I think enough has changed graphically to call it 11 but OSX sounds better. I also think they should have at least stayed with "Big Cats" until a major graphical change like this. To me if I throw the original OSX desktop background on any other OSX it looks (albeit superficially) similar.

I don't know what has to happen to justify a change in numbers and really it makes no difference I just thought it would be a good conversation.

What do you think would justify a number change?

 

[MikhailT]

Just as a point of discussion do you think enough has changed to justify a change to OS11? Personally I think enough has changed graphically to call it 11 but OSX sounds better. I also think they should have at least stayed with "Big Cats" until a major graphical change like this. To me if I throw the original OSX desktop background on any other OSX it looks (albeit superficially) similar.

I don't know what has to happen to justify a change in numbers and really it makes no difference I just thought it would be a good conversation.

What do you think would justify a number change?

OS X is a brand name, not a product version for Apple, just like Windows is a brand name for Microsoft. Apple has no reason to kill such a popular brand for another decade unless something radically changed.

There's nothing in Yosemite that justify such a massive brand change, just as iOS 7 didn't get a name change when it changed far more radically than Yosemite here.

If Apple changed the kernel, file system, overhauled Finder, and so on, that is worthy of a brand change but that is not likely to happen any time soon.

 

[bmac89]

Osx 11?

I don't think they should call it OSXI as OSX has become such a brand name. However I can see the next release after Yosemite 10.10 possibly being called OSX 11.

Calling it OSX 11 is still a bit like calling it OS 10.11 but far more simplified and catchy. I mean are they going to go to OSX 10.20!

Some people think going from 10.9 to 10.10 is odd, but to me 10 completes the cycle before going to OSX 11.

Just my 2 cents!

 

[Matt T]

Mavericks has always seemed a little awkward to me - if was a complete departure in terms of branding but the OS itself was no huge departure from Mountain Lion. Why not stick with one more big cat name? Why not save the new naming convention and branding for the new visual design of Yosemite?

 

[leman]

OS X is an architecture which is based on specific kernel, APIs and UI principles. From that perspective, Yosemite does not do anything differently. In another words, if you give a car a different paint job, it does not become an entirely different car. An OS XI would require a major architectural overhaul, and so far, I don't see any indications that it will happen any time soon. OS X ideas are far from exhausting their potential.

And of course, OS X is a popular brand name, not much will be gained from changing it.

 

[phillytim]

Apple's "OS X" really is no more or no less a brand name than "System 7" or "System 9" was.

Whatever Apple might deem necessary to succeed "OS X" could really be called anything, if Apple wanted to...be it "System 11" (which is highly unlikely, IMHO, to go back to that namesake numerical lineage of truly different code base) or even just "Core", for example.

Come to think of it, that "Core" idea has a nice, appropriate ring to it, doesn't it?

We really have no idea what comes next, but it's hard to imagine an OS X 10.69 coming down the pike, way after we're long gone.

At least Apple's not doing a Google, where we are on "Chrome version 38" after just what 6 years?

 

[PeterHolbrook]

Short answer to title question: NO!!!!

 

[Abba1]

Agree and disagree

I don't think they should call it OSXI as OSX has become such a brand name. However I can see the next release after Yosemite 10.10 possibly being called OSX 11.

Calling it OSX 11 is still a bit like calling it OS 10.11 but far more simplified and catchy. I mean are they going to go to OSX 10.20!

Some people think going from 10.9 to 10.10 is odd, but to me 10 completes the cycle before going to OSX 11.

Just my 2 cents!

I agree! 10.10 completes the cycle of OS X. But, I do think the next release should be called OS XI. Also, although I like the name, I miss the big cats.

 

[Bending Pixels]

Seriously? Would it make any difference? Nope....

 

[UncleSchnitty]

I don't think they should call it OSXI as OSX has become such a brand name. However I can see the next release after Yosemite 10.10 possibly being called OSX 11.

Calling it OSX 11 is still a bit like calling it OS 10.11 but far more simplified and catchy. I mean are they going to go to OSX 10.20!

Some people think going from 10.9 to 10.10 is odd, but to me 10 completes the cycle before going to OSX 11.

Just my 2 cents!

I think technically it would be called OS X 11, since OS X 10.11 is redundant. The X denotes 10.

Mavericks has always seemed a little awkward to me - if was a complete departure in terms of branding but the OS itself was no huge departure from Mountain Lion. Why not stick with one more big cat name? Why not save the new naming convention and branding for the new visual design of Yosemite?

I agree, I think they jumped the gun with changing from big cats. I think a major graphical change should have been a good time to depart from "big cat" to "locations"

OS X is an architecture which is based on specific kernel, APIs and UI principles. From that perspective, Yosemite does not do anything differently. In another words, if you give a car a different paint job, it does not become an entirely different car. An OS XI would require a major architectural overhaul, and so far, I don't see any indications that it will happen any time soon. OS X ideas are far from exhausting their potential.

And of course, OS X is a popular brand name, not much will be gained from changing it.

Ok, best answer I have seen so far on why they didn't. I don't really know the Kernel history on OS X so I don't know how much it has changed over time so that could very well be what it takes to change the X in OS X. I do however believe that the UI has changed enough to call it something different.

Seriously? Would it make any difference? Nope....

Seriously? You didn't see in the original post "really it makes no difference I just thought it would be a good conversation." its just for conversation. If you don't care just move along.

 

[2984839]

Apple's "OS X" really is no more or no less a brand name than "System 7" or "System 9" was.

Whatever Apple might deem necessary to succeed "OS X" could really be called anything, if Apple wanted to...be it "System 11" (which is highly unlikely, IMHO, to go back to that namesake numerical lineage of truly different code base) or even just "Core", for example.

Come to think of it, that "Core" idea has a nice, appropriate ring to it, doesn't it?

We really have no idea what comes next, but it's hard to imagine an OS X 10.69 coming down the pike, way after we're long gone.

At least Apple's not doing a Google, where we are on "Chrome version 38" after just what 6 years?

Google's naming scheme is a mess. I'm currently posting this from Chromium 37.0.2062.124 (281580)

Simple naming schemes are good. I like a single decimal place at most.

 

[UncleSchnitty]

Google's naming scheme is a mess. I'm currently posting this from Chromium 37.0.2062.124 (281580)

Simple naming schemes are good. I like a single decimal place at most.

I do like that I understand Apples decimal system. Version.build.update

It would be funny if it was called OS Next hah

 

[matreya]

I don't see the point in changing the name of OS X just because the version number is now 10.10, so NO, OS X Yosemite is a fine name for it...

 

[cjmillsnun]

OS X refers to the back end system.

That can still trace it's lineage back to NeXTStep.

It will remain as OS X as that is correct.

The X refers to 10, but also refers to the UNIX underpinnings.

the version numbers are not decimals but are whole numbers.

So 10.11 is not ten point one one, but ten dot eleven.

 

[Abba1]

No difference

Seriously? Would it make any difference? Nope....

Agreed! No difference, but why not?

 

[grahamperrin]

No.

All versions of OS X have the productName Mac OS X.

 

[leman]

I don't really know the Kernel history on OS X so I don't know how much it has changed over time so that could very well be what it takes to change the X in OS X. I do however believe that the UI has changed enough to call it something different.

But it didn't. It just received a new paint job. The logical elements are still undeniably OS X.

It would be funny if it was called OS Next hah

You really ought to read something about the history of OS X. OS X itself is build onto a system called NEXTStep

 

[UncleSchnitty]

You really ought to read something about the history of OS X. OS X itself is build onto a system called NEXTStep

That was my joke... apparently it wasn't funny.

 

[aldrinjtauro]

Well, the thing about Google Chrome is that it updates itself invisibly, making the version number irrelevant for marketing purposes. If you ask someone to get Chrome, you don't have to worry about what version they get. It's going to be the latest. But when it comes to Mac, iOS, Android, or Windows, installing updates almost always involves some human intervention, and many people don't feel like installing updates, making identifying the system version very important. Nobody ever has had to manually install a Chrome update, except in very specific enterprise situations. Therefore, there's no need to incorporate version numbers into its branding, and that allows developers to change the numbers at their own discretion. I mean, Chrome gets updated constantly, but I don't see Safari or Internet Explorer being updated anywhere near as much, at least not on the end user side.

 

[Wild-Bill]

I think I'll wait for 10.10.2 or .3

 

[rhysmorgan]

As others have said, OS X is a brand name.
Product names for applications aren't decimal. The version after 10.9 does not necessarily have to become 11.0

 

[colourfastt]

I think technically it would be called OS X 11, since OS X 10.11 is redundant. The X denotes 10.


I agree, I think they jumped the gun with changing from big cats. I think a major graphical change should have been a good time to depart from "big cat" to "locations"


Ok, best answer I have seen so far on why they didn't. I don't really know the Kernel history on OS X so I don't know how much it has changed over time so that could very well be what it takes to change the X in OS X. I do however believe that the UI has changed enough to call it something different.


Seriously? You didn't see in the original post "really it makes no difference I just thought it would be a good conversation." its just for conversation. If you don't care just move along.

Given the changes to the UI, we can honestly call it Mac OS 10.3 "Panther".

 

[meme1255]

I will probably never understand why should OS X be renamed to OS XI as some people suggest. There is not SINGLE reasonable thing why Apple should do that. XI looks awful and doesn't represent two things at once ( OS 10 + UniX)

 

[deviant]

I will probably never understand why should OS X be renamed to OS XI as some people suggest. There is not SINGLE reasonable thing why Apple should do that. XI looks awful and doesn't represent two things at once ( OS 10 + UniX)

Yeah.. because that's what people think when they see OS X.. uniX .........

 

[grahamperrin]

… OS X is a brand name.
Product names for applications aren't decimal. The version after 10.9 does not necessarily have to become 11.0

True, true and true for OS X (strictly speaking: an operating system, not an app).

For the current release:

ProductName: Mac OS X
ProductVersion: 10.9.5
BuildVersion: 13F34