Mac OS X.X (10.10) should be out by hmmmm 2010ish... 2011ish.

Quote: Originally Posted by analogika The only problem with the Mac OS X brand is all those knuckleheads going on about how you have to pay for "point" upgrades (i.e. 10.3-->…

I think they will stick to OS X for a very long time... They could even say OS X 11.0 considering the current name is OS X 10.4.2

Mac OS Y?

Why not. It's nearly Yunix anyway.

Mac OS X-Trem Ultimate Pro Edition x2 Mellenium

How about take the Final Fantasy route? OS X-2. Quote: Originally Posted by production_coordinator They could even say OS X 11.0 considering the current name is OS X 10.4.…

You know how Intel had the 286 processor, then the 386, then the 486... and then they gave the 586 the moniker "Pentium" to emphasize the five-ness of it, and then marketed the hec…

Quote: Originally Posted by CharlesS You know how Intel had the 286 processor, then the 386, then the 486... and then they gave the 586 the moniker "Pentium" to emphasize the fi…

Quote: Originally Posted by CharlesS You know how Intel had the 286 processor, then the 386, then the 486... and then they gave the 586 the moniker "Pentium" to emphasize the fi…

Since it's called Mac OS X 10.4.2 they could call it Mac OS X 11 indeed. 10.9 being less than 10.10 is mathematically wrong I would say. Then we still have the cats as well, don't …

I believe Apple said at one time that the Classic OS lasted about 20 years, and that they expected OS X to last about 20 years. I think OS X will be around for a long time. Beyond…

Quote: Originally Posted by Appleman 10.9 being less than 10.10 is mathematically wrong I would say. ,,, The versioning system used by Apple is not mathematical but logica…

Quote: Originally Posted by msuper69 The versioning system used by Apple is not mathematical but logical. Each part of the version number is considered separately, therefore 9…

10.10. is higher than 10.9 because 10>9. See? It's just tradition that the parts of the version number are separated by dots. They could be dashes too: 10-9, 10-10, etc. Chris

Quote: Originally Posted by Appleman Wow! My first ever

I'm waiting for Mac OS XL.

Too small of a kernel for me. I want Max OS XXL

Actually I'd prefer Mac OS XS - regular Mac OS X with all the debugging code removed...

Yeah, and I'm waitin' for me Mac OS XXX yeee-haw.

Quote: Originally Posted by tomodachi Yeah, and I'm waitin' for me Mac OS XXX yeee-haw. I agree... Mac OS XXX will be the naughtiest of them all... saucy! F.

Quote: Originally Posted by chabig I believe Apple said at one time that the Classic OS lasted about 20 years, and that they expected OS X to last about 20 years. I think OS X w…

I doubt if there is any significance in debating the issue of naming the OS – look at how Microsoft migrated from DOS -> Windows 1,2,3.x -> 9x/2000 -> XP -> Vista. At t…

Nah nah nah.. your all wrong. In 2010, when we reach the end of Mac OS X, Apple will bring out "Macintosh 2010". It will a very few number of upgrades, but they will be Macintosh 2…

By then it should be Intel only. I think they will really need a different name for the Intel OS X to avoid confusion. Maybe Mac OS iX - goes with the iapps naming convention. Whe…