Classic Mac OS System 1.0 - 4.3 System 1.0 System 1.1 System 2.0 System 3.0 System 3.1 System 3.2 System 3.3 System 4.0 System 4.1 System 4.2 System 4.3 System 6 System 6.0 System 6.0.1 -- release disputed System 6.0.2 System 6.0.3 System 6.0.4 System 6.0.5 System 6.0.7 System 6.0.8 System 6.0.8L -- never officially released from Apple System 7 "System" designation Regular Systems System 7 System 7.0.1 System 7.1 System 7.1.1 (System 7 Pro) System 7.1.2 System 7.1.2P System 7.1.3 System 7.5 Performa Systems System 7.0P1 System 7.1P1 System 7.1P2 System 7.1P3 System 7.1P4 System 7.1P5 System 7.1P6 "Mac OS" designation Mac OS 7.5.1 Mac OS 7.5.2 Mac OS 7.5.3 Mac OS 7.5.3L Mac OS 7.5.3 Revision 2 Mac OS 7.5.3 Revision 2.1 Mac OS 7.5.3 Revision 2.2 Mac OS 7.5.4 -- never released Mac OS 7.5.5 Mac OS 7.6 Mac OS 7.6.1 Mac OS 7.6.3 -- existance disputed Mac OS 8 Mac OS 8 Mac OS 8.1 Mac OS 8.5 Mac OS 8.5.1 Mac OS 8.6 Mac OS 9 Mac OS 9 Mac OS 9.0.2 Mac OS 9.0.3 Mac OS 9.0.4 Mac OS 9.1 Mac OS 9.2 Mac OS 9.2.1 Mac OS 9.2.2 End of the line for the "classic" non-Unix, non-NeXTStep OS family. No more versions after 9.2.2. None of these versions appear within the Unix family tree that I posted. And that proves my point: "Version 10" is a technicality when it comes to OS X.
But Mac OS 1-9 don't appear after NeXTStep 1.0 - 4.0....and yet OS X 10.0 does. Think hard now. Use the techie power user brain. I know you can do it.
Apple seems very flakey. Thanks, I did not know the history of this, but if they can change from System X to Mac OS to Mac OS X to just OS X what makes you think they'll never drop the X or rename it to something else all together? Jolly Tundra Mountaineous Wooly Lions with LAZERS
Personally, I don't think there will be an OS XI. They'll stick with OS X as the brand name and just continue to change the .x numbers with each major version like they have been doing until the there's a real sea change in direction like 2001. Maybe there will be an iOS X.
whatever, so we know your conjecture that's no victory on our part. I can see your point it might happen, it's probable (though not 100% likely) it'll happen but... nobody really knows now do they? Bottom line, this argument didn't have to happen at all. Especially in a thread about Android phones.
My original comment was fairly benign: that it was confusing for Android to use names for both version number changes and dot releases. People then claimed Apple did the same thing with OS X, despite their own argument actually being that OS X had never changed version numbers, only dot releases. Bizarre at best.
so you speak for Apple now... Apple can't even put their own appropriate thoughts into their own OS?? that's what I get out of this conversation. You're inteligent and know the ways of the Mac, surely... but I'm pretty sure you making this argument is just messed up. I mean, when Apple can't even make this argument themselves. Amd no, you don't speak for Apple any more than I speak for AMD.
What were the cat names for the version and dot releases of Mac OS 9 then? Or Mac OS 8? Or System 7? It's supposed to be the same as Android, right? Android's dessert names aren't limited to a single version release, so how can Apple be doing "the same thing" if there are no cat names outside of version 10? See...even if you accept the premise regarding Version 10, the argument still doesn't make any sense.
Love the title of this new thread, especially since it was Grim that brought up OS X as a comparison to Android. My original comment at the start of the thread has nothing to do with OS X. And as pointed out above, Grim's argument doesn't even make sense.
That's a pretty low bar for nerdiness. People on this forum used to fill entire pages of threads with a single post on Xbox vs. Gamecube graphic capabilities. It's like they were trying to write a Ph.D. dissertation.