Apple Mac OS X 10 Years Old Today

Status
Not open for further replies.

powerpcgamer

Distinguished
Mar 24, 2011
1
0
18,510
0
Their OS would be this old if they adopted normal industry standards to name an OS. Call it OS XI or XII when you release a new OS. 10.1, 10.2 is an UPDATE. Get with the program Apple.
 

Ragnar-Kon

Distinguished
Apr 13, 2010
201
0
18,830
0
[citation][nom]powerpcgamer[/nom]Their OS would be this old if they adopted normal industry standards to name an OS. Call it OS XI or XII when you release a new OS. 10.1, 10.2 is an UPDATE. Get with the program Apple.[/citation]
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.
 

noni675

Distinguished
Mar 24, 2011
2
0
18,510
0
Apple Macintosh computers started out on Motorola's 68K processors, which transitioned to the IBM PowerPC processors, then to Intel x86 processors.

Apple also had their own version of UNIX -- A/UX -- which could even run on a Mac II from 1987. This computer only had a 16MHz Motorola 68020 CPU and 1MB standard memory (but could go up to 128MBs), but needed a 68881 FPU for A/UX.
 

slothy89

Distinguished
Jan 9, 2011
19
0
18,560
0
Small niggle.. In the second last sentence you say Leopard(10.6) was the last PPC native OSX. Leopard is not OS X 10.6... lol.. Try 10.5 :)

For a 10 year old OS, it has done amazingly well.

The guy who said windows is a rehash of NT, yes it was, until Vista, which they totally re-engineered. XP was the last true NT based windows.
 

alidan

Distinguished
Aug 5, 2009
1,681
0
19,730
0
[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]

great point, but dont put vista, 7, and xp in the same catagory

xp is great
vista was a major step back
7 was what vista was supost to be, and i hate everything about it.

still use xp, and passing on vista and 7, because i hate them with a passion
 

lsc

Distinguished
Feb 19, 2010
2
0
18,510
0
[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.
 

tacoslave

Distinguished
Apr 3, 2009
281
0
18,940
1
i always liked vista never bluescreened, never ran slow( and i was running a pentium dual core @1.8 ghz and 2gb of ram)still running vista actually but now i overclocked to 3.6ghz and threw 4gb of ram and a 6850 and still feeling fresh. Maybe its because its fashionable to dis Vista and love 7 because to me neither seems faster (i triple boot ubuntu,7, and Vista(main).
 
G

Guest

Guest
I wonder how many days after Steve Jobs dies it will be till OSX is released for all X86 systems and not just ones built by Apple.
 

dbfm

Distinguished
Sep 1, 2010
5
0
18,510
0
Why? Why would that suck?

How could it be a bad thing for Windows to have some real competition in the mainstream desktop OS space?
 

mj4358

Distinguished
May 28, 2009
68
0
18,580
0
True windows would have competition....but it would be at the expense of quality for OSX. Dell, HP, will add their crapware to it which will cause problems and crashes that will be blamed on Apple by the consumer. Besides the OS and Hardware combo are what gives Apple its advantage in stability. Besides I seriously doubt Dell and HP will want to use hardware mandated by Apple.
The only reason I buy Apple products is because of the OS and hardware combo. I know it will work. I dont have to trouble shoot every other day and I can treat my computer like an appliance that does what I need it to do with minimal maintenace by me.
Everyone always pushes market share and competition....but the way I see; what for? Windows users will use windows because they think they are getting work done that cant be done on a Mac or OSX. And Apple users will buy Macs because we like the ease of use and functionality.
 

dbfm

Distinguished
Sep 1, 2010
5
0
18,510
0
I don't think allowing it to run on any old hardware would have any impact on the quality of OSX. If you didn't want the crapware, you could still pay the premium prices and buy an Apple.

The majority of ordinary people use Windows because that's what they have, not because they like it particularly. I don't see how creating more choice would devalue or remove any of the options that are currently available...despite what Mr Jobs might want you to think.
 

dbfm

Distinguished
Sep 1, 2010
5
0
18,510
0
Honestly, I don't think I need to spent too long explaining how Apple limits choice....That's the entire business model. I understand why it's good for them, but it isn't very good for me, or for competition.

Natural evolution, survival of the fittest....Surely it's hard to argue against that being a good idea? The fittest personal computer for the majority of mainstream users might be OSX on cheap x86 hardware, but that is a choice denied to the world by Apple.

Opening up the closed systems at Apple would be a very questionable commercial decision for them. It might work out very well, but it might work out very very badly..a risk...and risks that big shouldn't be taken lightly. I understand why things are the way they are, but I wouldn't want anybody to think that Apple (or any business) does what it does in the interest of consumer choice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
D Streaming Video & TVs 3
J Streaming Video & TVs 1
S Streaming Video & TVs 4
H Streaming Video & TVs 5
W Streaming Video & TVs 0
W Streaming Video & TVs 0
W Streaming Video & TVs 0
M Streaming Video & TVs 0
W Streaming Video & TVs 0
W Streaming Video & TVs 0
W Streaming Video & TVs 0
W Streaming Video & TVs 0
W Streaming Video & TVs 0
O Streaming Video & TVs 1
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 16
tuanmai Streaming Video & TVs 42
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 11
tuannguyen Streaming Video & TVs 50
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 21
JMcEntegart Streaming Video & TVs 63

ASK THE COMMUNITY