[citation][nom]Ragnar-Kon[/nom]Why do that? 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, etc. are essentially the same OS, just with upgrades done along the way.Microsoft has crazy names for Windows, like Windows 2000, XP, Vista, 7, etc. However, they're just upgrades to Windows NT done along the way. Ubuntu names their version numbers off of the month they are released in.So if you ask me, Apple has one of the more normal naming schemes than most OSs.BUT, having said that, I wouldn't say there is an "industry standard" to name an OS. Companies can name it whatever they want.[/citation]
Here's my gripe for the different versions of 10.1 to 10.6. While the user's interface looks similar, each iteration has lots of application incompatibilities and they constantly change their framework. The growing pains of unix like repositories existed very much along with OS X, having need new binaries after each kernal upgrade. Basically programs that work in 10.3 might work in 10.2, but will not work in 10.1. For open source software, you can just recompile them, but lots of binaries needed an upgrade, fix, or patch. Only recently it's been less painful, like 10.5 to 10.6 which is like a service pack release. When they dumped PPC to Intel, all hell broke loose for me, the 10.3 to 10.5 era. Because of this, I don't really believe in a true 10 years of OS X like WinXP due to migration pains.