Should OS X be renamed?

[binaryzero]

OS X became a terrible name once they passed 10.10.

??? It's still version 10, so why would they need to rename it?

10.28.4.8 ... It's still version 10.

[adrynalyne]

??? It's still version 10, so why would they need to rename it?

10.28.4.8 ... It's still version 10.

Tell me, in mathematics, what is the difference between 10.10 and 10.1 ? My original comment should have been once they "reached", not passed.

 

That was my point. We will see the same silliness with 10.20 (lets hope not).

[.Neo]

Tell me, in mathematics, what is the difference between 10.10 and 10.1 ? My original comment should have been once they "reached", not passed.

 

That was my point. We will see the same silliness with 10.20 (lets hope not).

Version numbers don't follow the same rules as the decimal system where 10.10 = 10.1, so there's no point into bringing that up.

[adrynalyne]

Version numbers don't follow the same rules as the decimal system where 10.10 = 10.1, so there's no point into bringing that up.

 

I said why it should be changed, and have my reasoning behind it. I know full well they don't follow the same rules but the mathematician in me does not ignore it. It's like staring at a bug on my windshield when I drive.

He asked...and I gave an answer. That is WHY it was brought up.

Don'like it? I really don't care...

[binaryzero]

You obviously haven't worked with Enterprise software that has continuous incremental updates... 

The mathematician in you should relax, because you're making an issue out of nothing. 

Can't wait for OS X 10.69, hopefully they have a cool name. 

[+virtorio MVC]

 

but the mathematician in me does not ignore it. It's like staring at a bug on my windshield when I drive.

Right here, you've expressed why the marketing and R&D do not mix.

[protocol7]

I would have rubbished this idea but with iOS, tvOS and watchOS macOS makes a lot of sense. OS X sticks out as inconsistent now.

They already recycled the iBook brand so reusing Mac OS wouldn't be so bad.

[seeprime]

Sure, why not rename the OS. Apple lovers will be amazed at the new name. I make this sarcastic remark because Apple is advertising the new iPhones as taking pictures that move! How revolutionary. They move! Let's call them moving pictures, or movies. Yeah. I strongly dislike advertising something new when it's really something very old instead. 

Thanks for letting me vent.

[adrynalyne]

You obviously haven't worked with Enterprise software that has continuous incremental updates... 

The mathematician in you should relax, because you're making an issue out of nothing. 

Can't wait for OS X 10.69, hopefully they have a cool name. 

I work in Enterprise but nice try.

Look, I get it, you don't agree with me. Get over yourself....YOU ARE THE ONE WHO QUESTIONED IT.

 

Don't be attacking me because you don't like the answer.

[binaryzero]

10.69.69 hehehe

[.Neo]

 

I said why it should be changed, and have my reasoning behind it. I know full well they don't follow the same rules but the mathematician in me does not ignore it. It's like staring at a bug on my windshield when I drive.

He asked...and I gave an answer. That is WHY it was brought up.

Don'like it? I really don't care...

 The mathematician in you is going to have a very hard time then indefinitely, since that's just how software version numbering works.

Luckily that's your problem, not mine.

[Active.]

 The mathematician in you is going to have a very hard time then indefinitely, since that's just how software version numbering works.

Not to mention, you can easily express software versions as mathematical structures. The real reason why the OS X brand is a bit silly, is because in Apple's parlance for OS X 10.11.1 you are supposed to say OS Ten (the brand) and then repeat: version ten point eleven [point one] or even: OS X El Capitan, version ten point eleven point one . Gets a bit tedious.

[+John. Subscriber¹]

No. It's a brand, and the've made steps to go away from the issue they would have had when they got to 10.10

OS X is on the same naming level as Windows now. Don't forget Microsoft skipped a version (9) 

[adrynalyne]

 The mathematician in you is going to have a very hard time then indefinitely, since that's just how software version numbering works.

Luckily that's your problem, not mine.

Im fully aware how software versioning works. Do you know how reading works? It doesn't appear so.

No. It's a brand, and the've made steps to go away from the issue they would have had when they got to 10.10

OS X is on the same naming level as Windows now. Don't forget Microsoft skipped a version (9) 

They had to for legacy software reasons.

 

[binaryzero]

Computer chats are fun :).

Beer time? 

[Gerowen]

I dono.  I mean it's a different architecture than previous Mac operating systems, different kernel and everything, so it makes sense to kind of set it apart in its own brand so people don't confuse it with previous operating systems.  At the same time though, we've been on OSX for a long time now, kind of weird to keep seeing the number 10 over and over.  Then again, if that's what makes Apple happy, more power to them.

Was doing some Googling while typing this, and apparently Apple releases quite a bit of their work as free open source software.

https://opensource.apple.com/

[adrynalyne]

I dono.  I mean it's a different architecture than previous Mac operating systems, different kernel and everything, so it makes sense to kind of set it apart in its own brand so people don't confuse it with previous operating systems.  At the same time though, we've been on OSX for a long time now, kind of weird to keep seeing the number 10 over and over.  Then again, if that's what makes Apple happy, more power to them.

Was doing some Googling while typing this, and apparently Apple releases quite a bit of their work as free open source software.

https://opensource.apple.com/

They dont have a choice for some of it. OS X and iOS contain GPL licensed code.

[MikeChipshop Member]

Eventually they probably will. If not just to satisfy naming conventions, i mean, there's only so many point versions you can release. 

edit:  why the hell are my post not merging together??

Because you touch yourself at night  

[protocol7]

I don't know if you can really even call OS X a brand anymore. It's mainly third-party developers who run with the X. I'm assuming that FCP and Logic Pro are only called X because they both happen to be at version 10 right now.

Compared to earlier releases Apple have massively toned down the X in the ATM screen. Plus most time I talk to Mac people (who know what system they're running), we tend to use the codename rather than the version number. So it'll be Yosemite instead of 10.10. And never OS X 10.10. That's just too much of a mouthful.

[binaryzero]

Windows X

Get it... Hahahah

[ATLien_0]

Well technically it already is Mac OS X / Macintosh OS X. 

[neufuse Veteran]

 

Tell me, in mathematics, what is the difference between 10.10 and 10.1 ? My original comment should have been once they "reached", not passed.

 

That was my point. We will see the same silliness with 10.20 (lets hope not).

 

I know you have your point BUT version numbers are usually {8bits}.{8bits} when stored (not all os's follow this, so this is just an example).. therefore a version could be 10.255 if it wanted to be... so in that case in mathematics... 0b1010 is not the same as 0b1

 

TLDR: It's because of binary representation of version numbers not decimal

Edited October 30, 2015 by neufuse

[adrynalyne]

 

I know you have your point BUT version numbers are usually {8bits}.{8bits} when stored (not all os's follow this, so this is just an example).. therefore a version could be 10.255 if it wanted to be... so in that case in mathematics... 0b1010 is not the same as 0b1

 

TLDR: It's because of binary representation of version numbers not decimal

I think you misunderstood my.pet peeve. Trailing zeros are meaningless in math. When I look at version numbers that in math would be the same number, it bugs me. It's a pet peeve of mine.

Example 10.1 and 10.10 are the same. 

I'm not saying Apple is wrong for what they did, it just annoys me. Some people in here thought it would be cute to relate that as me not knowing how software versioning works.

 

[MikeChipshop Member]

I think you misunderstood my.pet peeve. Trailing zeros are meaningless in math. When I look at version numbers that in math would be the same number, it bugs me. It's a pet peeve of mine.

Example 10.1 and 10.10 are the same. 

I'm not saying Apple is wrong for what they did, it just annoys me. Some people in here thought it would be cute to relate that as me not knowing how software versioning works.

 

Agreed. The problem is software devs use it to their advantage, there been a few cases where you've bought in to a product you believe it's near final release, say, version 0.9, only for them to jump to version 0.10!
I really should as it is in mathematics 0.1 == 0.10 == 0.1000000000 etc.

[neufuse Veteran]

I think you misunderstood my.pet peeve. Trailing zeros are meaningless in math. When I look at version numbers that in math would be the same number, it bugs me. It's a pet peeve of mine.

Example 10.1 and 10.10 are the same. 

I'm not saying Apple is wrong for what they did, it just annoys me. Some people in here thought it would be cute to relate that as me not knowing how software versioning works.

 

no I didn't misunderstand you, I was just saying that's the only way to represent it... since it is NOT a real number it's a grouping, you have 4 groups of 8 and 16 bit integers... Major.Minor.Build.Revision saying it's version 10.10 is not saying it as a number, because there is more that we truncated off... OSX version 10.10 is actually 10.10.0 or 10.10.0.0 we just don't say that because most people don't care about the revision or build unless they give us a reason to care like ios 9.0.1... version numbers are not mathematical respesntations but binary representations as base10 grouped by decimal points... would you say the same thing if they changed the group separator to a colon? 10:10:0:1 ?