bLiZZaRd1284 Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 According to MacMagazine.com.br, the upcoming Mac OS X update (10.4) will be known as "Tiger".Apple has used similar feline names for previous versions of Mac OS X: 10.3 (Panther), 10.2 (Jaguar). In July, Apple registered a number of related trademarks: Lynx, Cougar, Leopard, and Tiger. MacMagazine.com.br also reports that up until this point, 10.4 was known as "Merlot" internally. This is consistent with information available from MacRumors' sources. Additional Info: Internal Build is at 8A85 with Safari v133 what do u guys think of tiger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XP_01 Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 Hehe sounds very strong :D I think it's a nice name, but to start a whole new thread for this.... There isn't much to talk about, little is known about 10.4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmove Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 iLike the name Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shining Arcanine Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 I don't see how you can trademark a species' widely accepted name... They minus well trademark Homo Sapiens and Humans while they are at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kev64 Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 Edit: :pinch: :unsure: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hadiz Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 Stange name, but I guess they want to follow the whole feline naming convention...jaguar, panther now Tiger. When are we gonna see Lion? :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Veteran Posted April 2, 2004 Veteran Share Posted April 2, 2004 I would have prefered Cougar, but Tiger is okay I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digistil Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 I don't see how you can trademark a species' widely accepted name... They minus well trademark Homo Sapiens and Humans while they are at it. A company is able to trademark such a word as a case of context. I.E. they can trademark "Tiger" as the code name for a piece of software. That doesn't mean they control the word in the market as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sebaz Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 i think they should've call it Mac OS X 10.4: House Cat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael.b Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 It's GRRREEEAAAAAAATTTTT! (Sorry... you know someone was bound to do it.) Personally, I too think they could have picked a more intimidating name, per se? Who knows though, I mean, I don't know if I could necessarily "take" Tony if we were to duke it out 1:1 in a Cupertino alleyways, or something... But what I do value is that they have this theme that goes about thier releases--I suppose, at least for me, it ads a sense of personality to the product. But all in all, thumbs up, if in fact this is the given prelease name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted April 2, 2004 Veteran Share Posted April 2, 2004 Another year, another $129. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SFNE Freak Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 Another year, another $129. It beats upgrading Windows for a few $10 less and getting little-to-no new features. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the evn show Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 It's GRRREEEAAAAAAATTTTT! (Sorry... you know someone was bound to do it.) Don't you mean: Tag-wire: It's insanely grrrreat. The code name doesn't really matter, it's only the last two releases of OS X where the development name made any difference to the shipping product - AFAIK only Jaguar had any direct information (the 'X' on the box, and the faux fur wallpaper) that specified it's build name. People like the code names because "OS X 10.#" is long winded and dull. The transition for Jaguar to Panther sounds a lot more exciting (as far as software can be exciting). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Derf Veteran Posted April 2, 2004 Veteran Share Posted April 2, 2004 It beats upgrading Windows for a few $10 less and getting little-to-no new features. Windows only comes out every two or three years. So you don't need to spend $129 per year. Microsoft does a better job of backward compatiblity allowing you to keep you OS for even longer than Microsoft's recommended upgrade cycle. Pick up Illustrator for OS/X? Oh, that requires 10.2 or later. There were so little changes between some of those OS/X releases that they could have been considered glorified service packs. I mean, how many people upgraded to Panther just so they could colour/prioritize their folders like OS 6,7,8 & 9. Some of the earlier releases offered even less (at least Panther is supposed to be 30% faster). Many Apple users pay for the upgrade every year out of blind loyalty. IMO, OS/X was kinda rushed and it's only now looking like a proper finished product. Mac users were traditional not asked to pay for OS 8 or OS 9 incremental upgrades. (OS 9 users were allowed to upgrade freely to OS 9.1 and even 9.22). This $129/year business only started with OS/X. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 Some advice...try OS X before you post again. Maybe it will look like you actually know what you're talking about. If you can't stay on topic, don't post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristotle-dude Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 (edited) Windows only comes out every 2-3 years if you ignore Windows 98, Windows 98 SE and Windows 98 and Windows 2000 and Windows XP. :D There was not that much time between Windows 2000 and XP. OS X paid upgrades is that you get a lot more features and the OS gets faster rather than slower rather than adding a new theme, a couple wizards and larger memory/processor requirements. Personally, I would rather get an upgrade that speeds up my computer via faster software than having to shell out several hundred dollars to upgrade my entire machine (basically replacing it) just to run the next version of OS. I would also not want have to wait more than 3 years between OS upgrades (longhorn) :D I always thought that software upgrades were suppose to improve performance rather than decrease it. Fred, forget about the version numbers of the releases, they are meaningless. After all XP was NT 5.1 and 2000 was NT 5.0. :) The kernel of OS X went from 6.x to 7.x when Panther came out to replace Jaguar. Many frameworks also increased in a version number. If you think Panther was not a major upgrade, try doing some scrolling or searching in PDFs or the filesystem in Jaguar. Edited April 2, 2004 by aristotle-dude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaMonkey82 Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 I'm not that fond of the name I do like Cougar much better. Other than that I am really looking forward to this release. I think we'll see an upgraded Expose, maybe an improved Quartz Extreme, and Safari to name a few. I'd like to see Font Book updated and the Home on Ipod feature return. Some people complain about the $129 a year but again I look forward to it. I only pay $65 being a federal employee and I believe students get a break on it too, so its not bad. I think its a good deal, I don't spend much on software througout the year since most things I use are free/open source so I can justify the price. Also OS X upgrades usually include features I can actually use and speed up older systems, unlike with Windows where it includes 100 different new Wizards that do absolutly nothing and slows down a computer. For the record 10.1 was a free upgrade 10.2 was the first OS X paid update and most software still supports 10.2.8 which was the last free update. Apple also continues to apply security patches the Jag-wire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meamog Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 Windows only comes out every 2-3 years if you ignore Windows 98, Windows 98 SE and Windows 98 and Windows 2000 and Windows XP. There was not that much time between Windows 2000 and XP. I don't want to be accused of Mac-hate... I use Jaguar for my graphic design classes. Still, windows 98 SE was a cheap-o service pack, ME was the user alternative to Win 2000... they weren't sequential releases. XP could have been XP.1 with SP1, and XP.2 with SP2, but they're free upgrades. Still, I think Tiger will be yet another leap forward for Mac OSX, even if it's mostly fine-tuning and more user-requested features. What I'd really like to see is iTunes 5... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaMonkey82 Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 I forgot about iTunes 5. Maybe we'll get a look at the WWDC in June. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 I don't want to be accused of Mac-hate... I use Jaguar for my graphic design classes. Still, windows 98 SE was a cheap-o service pack, ME was the user alternative to Win 2000... they weren't sequential releases. XP could have been XP.1 with SP1, and XP.2 with SP2, but they're free upgrades.Still, I think Tiger will be yet another leap forward for Mac OSX, even if it's mostly fine-tuning and more user-requested features. What I'd really like to see is iTunes 5... They're not free upgrades, they're free service packs. Big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristotle-dude Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 I don't agree that 10.2, 10.3 were the same as service packs. Service packs are usually just bug fixes rather than adding features and replacing the Kernel with a new version number. Panther's BSD is based on 5.0 FreeBSD whereas Jaguar's BSD is based on 4.x FreeBSD. When we went from Jaguar to Panther, most of the subsystems went up a version number and there was some software incompatibilties requiring patches to third-party software. Service packs are the same thing as those free 10.3.x updates we get every few months. Disagree? Please explain your reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dashel Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 Personally, I would rather get an upgrade that speeds up my computer via faster software than having to shell out several hundred dollars to upgrade my entire machine (basically replacing it) just to run the next version of OS OS X, like any modern operating system has more system requirements. And as far as slower systems go, WinXP is much more tolerent o old hardware than OS X is from my experience. Dunno, I think the 'cat' thing is a little overdone. Do you really need to have a 'cute' name for every point release? BTW, windows service packs routinely add features and improvements along with bug and security updates. I don't think kernel updates are that different from service packs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristotle-dude Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 I'm not arguing that NT should not have more requirements than 9x based oses or that OS X would not have more requirements than Mac OS 9.x. But if you look the speed decreases from NT 4.0 to 2000 (NT 5.0) and finally XP (NT 5.1) and compare that with the Speed increases from 10.0 to 10.1 to 10.2 to 10.3, you see a different pattern here. There are people that say that Panther is usable on slow G3 500 Mhz or below hardware which was unusuable under Jaguar or 10.1. A modern operating system should not necessarily require more processing power with each new version. Modern does not = bloated. XP is only usuable if you not only revert to classic but turn off all effects including cleartype on sub P3 500Mhz hardware and have more than 256mb ram. We can agree to disagree but changing the full version number of a kernel is a significant change in the software development world speaking as a windows developer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dashel Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 (edited) Yea, but a lot of that is because the first couple of versions of X were so ungodly slow that anything is an improvement. XP runs surprisingly well on a PII300 w/256. Can't say the same for OS X on a G3 300 with the same amount of RAM. I definately agree with you though that modern should not equal bloated. Too many companies rely on faster hardware to compensate for sloppy coding. Edited April 2, 2004 by Dashel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ad345zAdZ0d9_ Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 A modern operating system should not necessarily require more processing power with each new version. Modern does not = bloated.XP is only usuable if you not only revert to classic but turn off all effects including cleartype on sub P3 500Mhz hardware and have more than 256mb ram. Whoa man... Stub out that joint, wipe your eyes, and open the curtains. Yes that's right: the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts