X is both a letter and a number. 10 is only a number. No match! That's why Steve Jobs had a god complex and Bill Gates just wanted to retire and build the world's most efficient toilet.
Yes, it puts your own argument to bed. From the first video at the 1:44 minute mark after Jobs ticks off Apple's 5 point general strategy for OS X: "To sum it up: make the next great computer operating system" Voila...it's not the tenth version of their previous OS. He goes on to talk about the kernel of OS X (Darwin) and says that it's "very Linux-like" and has "free BSD Unix, mach microkernel, completely open source". So you can either base your argument on content of the OS vs. the previous OS, or you can buy into chi's mindless theory of matching numbers as proof of...well...pretty much anything you want it to be.
I have never said it was based on the older OS versions, I said it was the 10th OS release for Macs and it is called OS 10 which Steve Himself just proved. You have been trying to argue that it was called OS X version 10 which I have shown to be wrong. OS 10's updates have not been new operating systems, just updates of the base OS with new cat names. Sure a couple have been big updates with changes to the GUI etc but some like 10.8 are mostly constituted of small changes.
Yes, and it's not Apple's "tenth OS", because versions aren't the same thing as the OS designation itself.
Um they have released 10 OS's for the Macintosh, OS1-OS10 so that does kind of make it the tenth. OS 9 was fundamentally different enough from OS 8 for it not to be OS 8.7 (8.6 being the last revision of OS 8 ) so it is a new OS. With 10.9 fast approaching surely they have to be thinking of OS 11 or will go mental and go with 10.10?
You're just playing dumb. If Apple had released Linux, Windows, Android, Mac OS, Solaris, Minix, Chrome, Be OS, and AIX before OS X, then you'd have a point. That would equal their "tenth OS". Instead, it's just Mac OS and OS X, for a grand total of two major operating systems for the Mac. Sure, the first Mac OS had nine version releases, but they're all considered part of the same OS, not nine unique operating systems like the examples in the first sentence. Plus, your argument was really about how the cat names were "the same" as Android's dessert names. Why would 10.10 be mental? It's not like it's a digital clock. Apple doesn't even mention the numbers when they market the OS anyway.
What exactly is wrong with that? Does your average consumers need to know what's coming up? They're just code names that happen to be a little bit fun so have made their way into marketing also, just like what happened with OS X (originally the cat names were internal code only, with 10.3 they began to market them via the code names). Who cares if revisions and major overhauls have the same classing of code name? When they release you can tell if its a revision or a major release/shift via the number. You're making out like it's some big deal that tech reporters and enthusiasts can't predict how substantial the next version will be from an internal code name. It's actually worse with OS X. Will the next big cat be a major update like 10.3, 10.5, or simply a performance reworking like 10.6 or have minor changes like 10.8 or 10.1? That's just the thing, with OS X, you can't even tell from the number because there is no distinction between releases in number alone because there are only dot releases and they are always incremental. At least with Android you know when a release represents a larger change/shift without having to read a press release. You're just hung up on the names because you made a prediction that was wrong. Now you feel the need to say other tech reporters were also wrong and Google's code naming system is vague and bad for consumers. It was obvious to me that Jelly Bean would probably be 4.1 because it was a return to form after tablets disrupted things. Some people didn't actually take this into account and just saw a pattern of "well, the last two times they did this, so...".
So apple have not made 10 OSs but they have made 10 versions of their OS. Like they haven't made 10 different music library programs but they have made 10 versions of Itunes? Or is it like Ford have made 7 "versions" of the Fiesta, which has had many small revisions to each version but it is still one car?
A. I didn't make a "prediction". I read tech articles that stated Jellybean would be 5.0 Android. B. How can you claim that it's easier to "know" when an Android release is going to be a larger shift when Google themselves doesn't necessarily provide the specific number along with the name? That's obviously why so many people in the tech blogosphere thought Jellybean would be 5.0 instead of 4.1: Google didn't provide the info until later. C. You don't seem to know what you're talking about in regards to the major/minor releases of OS X. 10.6 was simply a "performance reworking"? 10.4 Tiger isn't a major release? 10.1 isn't a major release? D. Didn't you previously refer to Android 3.0 Honeycomb not working on phones as a "hiccup" in Android's development? E. And most importantly...I never said Android's naming was a "big deal", or that there was something "wrong" with it. I said that I personally found it confusing, and maybe Google should unify the dessert names within a certain category for each numbered release (like all the 4.0 nicknames relating to ice cream). That's all it took for people to get upset: a mild, non-combative personal opinion about Google's naming. That's one of the reason's it's so hilarious when people claim I think Apple can do no wrong.
This is lunacy! If Microsoft rebadged Ubuntu as Microsoft Windows 9... it would still be the 9th version of Windows. What fucking difference does the actual source code change make?
The tech articles made a prediction, you took it as a truth and didn't bother to read the actual release info after the official release. Now you're off on an endless rant about how it's confusing anyway. That's the point of a code name. It was always intended to be an internal code name. Code names are designed to disguise the product from outside observers. Any subsequent marketing of these code names does not have to adhere to any rules because the version numbers distinguish those rules quite clearly already. You mean they only released specific details when they officially unveiled the product? Good lord! I listed a few examples. I'm well aware that Tiger was a major release because it was the first I experienced first hand. 10.1 I did not, but it clearly looks pretty minor in comparison to most other releases to me. 10.6 I had on one system (intel) while having 10.5 on two other systems for 2 years and yeah, the difference is pretty damn minor beyond optimization for the intel platforms. Like I mentioned above it was more of a shift. It was a hiccup in the version numbers, yes, as it had to be distinguished from 2.3 significantly, and then 4.0 had to be distinguished from it as it took the changes, made updates and also worked on phones. The rule that 3.x was "tablet only" was a necessary distinction. They're just code names. For the record, they are also alphabetical, so your suggestions wouldn't fit. The very nature of them being dessert names and being alphabetical shows how little importance is actually placed on them. Like I said, you have the official version numbers if you want to distinguish between major and incremental releases - something that you can't do with OS X.
@supersonic It doesn't actually make any difference. My original comment and Grim's original response had nothing to do with how many historic versions of Apple's Mac operating system there were. This is just one of those threads where people conveniently lose track of what they were originally talking because they've already lost the argument. Grim said Apple's naming of OS X was "the same" as Android. But it's simply not correct. Android has 4 different version numbers now with names and multiple dot releases with names as well. OS X only has names for the .x releases. There are no other version numbers of OS X, and there are no other code names for Apple's Mac OS outside of OS X.
Android has a code name for each release, these code names are meaningless but now used for marketing. OS X has a code name for each release, these code names are meaningless but now used for marketing. Look at the version number if you want actual insight with Android, with OS X, the version number only tells you if a release is newer or older. You get no bearing on whether it is a major release or minor revision.
Except for Android 3.0...which was the "hiccup", where 3.x was not an upgrade from 2.x if you owned an Android phone. And except that OS X has never changed version numbers, so the code name is always the next .x release, which is different from Android, where the next code name might be a .x release or the next numbered release, which was the original point I made...not whether the content of the release was judged to be minor/major. But other than that, it's all identical.
You mean in the same way OS X 10.6 was not an upgrade from 10.5 if you owned an PPC based Mac? Saying something is not an upgrade because it only works on certain devices is kind of silly. All that tells anyone is that a release with a cat name will still be OS X and not OS XI/11/BigMac11.
[quote author=alterego] If Apple had released Linux, Windows, Android, Mac OS, Solaris, Minix, Chrome, Be OS, and AIX before OS X, then you'd have a point. That would equal their "tenth OS". Instead, it's just Mac OS and OS X, for a grand total of two major operating systems for the Mac. Sure, the first Mac OS had nine version releases, but they're all considered part of the same OS, not nine unique operating systems like the examples in the first sentence. [/quote] So windows NT4, 2000, XP, Vista, 7 and 8 are all the same OS because they are all versions of NT?