"X" or "10"?

A

Ashton

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 13, 2004
Messages
2,514
Just an interesting little question bouncing around in my head...

I had read some time back that the "new generation" of Macintosh Operating systems was designated "X" to differentiate it from MacOS. (X as in Generation-X, X-ray, X-men, etc) However I've since heard a lot of people, from laypersons to industry testers to official Apple staff in keynotes (including the late Steve Jobs himself) Call it "OS-10"

Whats your interpretation, [H]? And do you call it "OSX" or "OS10"?
 
I call it "ten", but I do not get super offended when people say "ex" like some people do :)
 
Fairly certain if you ask Apple its "ten".

I'm always going to think and refer to it as "X".
 
Officially it is supposed to be called Oh-eS-Ten. OS9 preceeded it. They choose "X" the Roman numeral, I assume because of the way it looks stylistically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osx
Literally in the second paragraph of this Wiki article it explains this. Including pronunciation, designation, and style.

Here is a quote of the first two paragraphs:
Wikipedia article on OSX said:
OS X (play /oʊ ˌɛs ˈtɛn/),[7] formerly Mac OS X,[8] is a series of Unix-based graphical interface operating systems developed, marketed, and sold by Apple Inc. OS X (officially) runs exclusively on Macintosh computers and has been pre-loaded on all Macs since 2002.

OS X, whose X is the Roman numeral for 10 and is a prominent part of its brand identity, is built on technologies developed at NeXT between the second half of the 1980s and Apple's purchase of the company in late 1996. It was the successor to Mac OS 9, released in 1999, the final release of the "classic" Mac OS, which had been Apple's primary operating system since 1984.
Click to expand...
(My bolding for emphasis relating to this topic.)
 
Deinos said:
I call it "ten", but I do not get super offended when people say "ex" like some people do :)
Click to expand...

Amusingly I'm the other way around because I feel OSX is FAR superior to OS9 and below and feel it's important to make it clear that OSX is not just the "next update to OS9" (and personally I *HATED* Macs before OSX due to the OS)

UnknownSouljer said:
Officially it is supposed to be called Oh-eS-Ten. OS9 preceeded it. They choose "X" the Roman numeral, I assume because of the way it looks stylistically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osx
Literally in the second paragraph of this Wiki article it explains this. Including pronunciation, designation, and style.

Here is a quote of the first two paragraphs:

(My bolding for emphasis relating to this topic.)
Click to expand...

Very interesting, I should have checked Wikipedia first, though I'm still curious how many people say "OS-ecs" and how many say "OS-ten"
 
Ashton said:
Very interesting, I should have checked Wikipedia first, though I'm still curious how many people say "OS-ecs" and how many say "OS-ten"
Click to expand...
Chalk one up for the "OS-ecs" category here. Been calling it that since it came out. Same with every techie I know. That being said, it really doesn't make a difference to me if someone calls it "X" or "10", as long as I can understand what they're talking about.
 
I think I called it OS10 before I actually used Macs much and then I got a job working as a programmer with several designers and suddenly I was saying OSX.
 
Even Steve Jobs made the occasional Oh Ess Ecks flub, but it is Oh Ess Ten.
 
what are they gonna call the next one..? OSXI? they're only 2 releases from needing a new image..
 
OniFactor said:
what are they gonna call the next one..? OSXI? they're only 2 releases from needing a new image..
Click to expand...

Well, that's assuming they don't just continue the naming scheme into double digits. I admit that I've thought the same thing, but as long as Mac's OS is based upon the same UNIX infrastructure underneath, I assume they'll just keep rolling along as is.

The REAL question is how many cats can they come up with before having to name the operating system something other than a cat?
 
UnknownSouljer said:
The REAL question is how many cats can they come up with before having to name the operating system something other than a cat?
Click to expand...

There are quite a few critters in the feline family... but yes one day we're going to hear:
"I'm here to talk about the next iteration of OSX, yes I'm talking about... Calico Kitten"

A mix of lol and d'awww
 
UnknownSouljer said:
Well, that's assuming they don't just continue the naming scheme into double digits. I admit that I've thought the same thing, but as long as Mac's OS is based upon the same UNIX infrastructure underneath, I assume they'll just keep rolling along as is.

The REAL question is how many cats can they come up with before having to name the operating system something other than a cat?
Click to expand...

you mean it'll be Mac OS 10.10 after 10.9? kinda goes against all version naming.. but, this is Apple..
 
OniFactor said:
you mean it'll be Mac OS 10.10 after 10.9? kinda goes against all version naming.. but, this is Apple..
Click to expand...

It's quite common actually. It's a major-minor format where the numbering in each section is independent from the others. So 10.5 didn't mean they were half way to 11.0, just that there's been 5 releases since the first of that major version.
 
ryan_975 said:
It's quite common actually. It's a major-minor format where the numbering in each section is independent from the others. So 10.5 didn't mean they were half way to 11.0, just that there's been 5 releases since the first of that major version.
Click to expand...

Apple
Apple has a formalised version number structure based around the NumVersion struct, which specifies a one- or two-digit major version, a one-digit minor version, a one-digit "bug" (i.e. revision) version, a stage indicator (drawn from the set development/prealpha, alpha, beta and final/release), and a one-byte (i.e. having values in the range 0–255) pre-release version, which is only used at stages prior to final. In writing these version numbers as strings, the convention is to omit any parts after the minor version whose value are zero (with "final" being considered the zero stage), thus writing 1.0.2b12, 1.0.2 (rather than 1.0.2f0), and 1.1 (rather than 1.1.0f0).
Click to expand...

it doesn't fit their current/previous structuring, though, is what i mean. yes, i understand that software versioning can go 10.10.1-r99, etc etc, but, that's not the format that they've used. i guess i should've said "goes against all of their naming conventions" meaning, Apple
 
OniFactor said:
it doesn't fit their current/previous structuring, though, is what i mean. yes, i understand that software versioning can go 10.10.1-r99, etc etc, but, that's not the format that they've used. i guess i should've said "goes against all of their naming conventions" meaning, Apple
Click to expand...

*scratches head*
MacOS has almost always used a *NIX-like numbering scheme.

edit: Huh. Guess not. Apple uses their own versioning scheme. Didn't know that. Looks like if they stick to it, 10.9 will be the last "OS X."
wikipedia said:
Apple
Apple has a formalised version number structure based around the NumVersion struct, which specifies a one- or two-digit major version, a one-digit minor version, a one-digit "bug" (i.e. revision) version, a stage indicator (drawn from the set development/prealpha, alpha, beta and final/release), and a one-byte (i.e. having values in the range 0–255) pre-release version, which is only used at stages prior to final. In writing these version numbers as strings, the convention is to omit any parts after the minor version whose value are zero (with "final" being considered the zero stage), thus writing 1.0.2b12, 1.0.2 (rather than 1.0.2f0), and 1.1 (rather than 1.1.0f0).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top