Mac OS XI?

Hey wondering when time frame would be for something like os xi or a whole new os.

 

Probably in like 3 years

 

A looong way off, Apple have proved to be incapable of coding their own OS and why should they? OSX is fine and Apple would make more money adding miniscule features to it and charging £99 ($200 in UK, $129 in US) for it, e.g. My friend payed £99 for... Expose (Panther). Expose is awesome, just not worth $200
You have to understand that Apple is about pure profit, why waste money developing a successor to something that works?

 

exactly. windows is really all they have to worry about, but thats destroying itself anyway. after that all theyll need to worry about is linux, but unless that gets more native programs that people know, that wont give them much competition anyway. sometime down the road, mac will be the standard for home users and windows will only be used in business.

 

OS 11 is years off. Way into the future. The only thing that would necessitate that kind of jump would be a significant rewrite or change in the way the OS works. Until then it's OS X, which is fine with me, it is a great OS.

 

I would say, OS XI would probably come in when its time for a major transition in the computing world. Whether that is transiting from mouse + trackpad to multi-touch, I don't know. But I have a feeling/my prediction is, a major transition in the way we use computers will bring in Mac OS XI.

But there's also the chance that Apple never brings out OS XI . OS X sounds and looks so good in writing, we might see OS 10.10 .

 

Is the upcoming Leopard version only supporting 64-bit hardware?

 

what do you mean? if your worried about your MBP, dont worry, itll work.

 

I know that the MBP will work with it, but I was just curious on whether the older Mac's would support it.

 

Leopard runs on both 32-bit and 64-bit.

 

You wouldn't need a complete OS rewrite to incorporate touch capabiIities, XP already has it built in and I dunno if OSX does...
As for Mac becoming the world standard... Not possible unless prices go down A LOT (which is against the Apple ethic), if you just needed a computer for word processing etc. would you rather buy a $249 (screen and keyboard inclusive, as well as decent RAM and HDD) Dell or a $499 Mac Mini (no screen and keyboard/mouse, RAM and HDD as crap as can be).

 

the mini because it would last longer then the dell

 

this is just a theory: because Mac OS X is based on BSD Unix, an major update of BSD would "push" a change in Mac OS to the next level.--there isn't a major change planned on the BSD fron, as far as I have read, so I am sure there wont be a new next level version of Mac OS.

 

@Radcom lol thats funny:
(I used Dell as an example, plenty more sub $350 PCs around)
A PC of that price is faster (mac mini is laptop based), has more capabilities, a larger amount of people to help you, more upgradability and is (include price of screen and controls) 1/2 the price of the Mac. The OS's are just as good as eachother... Tell me what's the logical decision? and how is the mini longer lasting? (granted I've seen 20 minis survive Typhoon flooding and full water submersion)

 

I fixed your post for you Sam


@Phritz, please just stop trolling. You're not going to change any body's minds posting the way you are. In fact you just look silly.

 

Well, technically OS X is somewhat based on BSD. But they're definitely very different, especially after all these years. And technically speaking, OS X actually is based on NextSTEP OS (Steve Jobs' former work), which is based on a Mach kernel, which is related to the BSD kernel. So really, OS X is not nearly as dependent on BSD's movement as you may think. That being said, OS X1 will either be a complete re-write of a new kernel, or they'll stick with the Microsoft theory and just rewrite everything else on top of the same kernel.

 

I'd say it's just a naming thing. They could have called 10.2 "OS 11" or whatever. They just like the "OS X" name, and are incrementing it that way.

That dosen't mean the new OSes are any less major than had they called them "OS 11, OS 12" etc.

 

Well, not exactly. The transition from OS 9 to OS X was major. Brand new code, new GUI. 10.2 to 10.3, or even 10.4 to 10.5, is a significant improvement, but it is still OS X, and not a major "re-design", which is what happened in OS 9 to OS X.

 

Yes, but most OS versions aren't that major of a shift. Windows 2000 > XP > Vista isn't that huge of a shift. OS 7 > 8 > 9 wasn't that big of a shift. Windows 95 > 98 > 98SE > ME wasn't either.

All those are the same types of shifts we see with OS X 3 > 4 > 5 etc.

Basically they've named the OS "OS X", and are currently on version 4.

They could just as easily have said this was OS 13 or 14-it's just a naming thing because they like the OS X name, and that no longer really means anything. The real OS version number is 4 or 5 or whatever. Heck, Steve Jobs just played with version numbers to get up to 9, so that there could be an "OS X". OS 8 was originally going to be 7.7. It's just a marketing thing.

What I'm saying is the premise of waiting for an "OS 11" is flawed. What they could have called OS 11 has been out for years, and has long since been replaced.

If you're waiting for an actual complete rewrite of the OS as major as Mac OS to OS X, or DOS to Windows XP, you're going to be waiting for years, if not decades. There aren't any monumental shifts available right now. OS X (and Windows) already incorporate the newest types of technology, already have a ton of future potential. Geez, Unix has been around in one form or another for decades. It could be 50 years, 100 years before we see that kind of shift again.

 

Actually, Steve Jobs wasn't around in the OS 7-OS 8 development days. He came back right before OS 8 was released and transitioned Apple over to OS X. But your point is no less valid, as OS 9 can be considered an evolutionary step to get OS X. The X seems to signify in my mind the UNIX and Next based, both words which highly stress the "x" in their names. But that's just my opinion.

The benefit of having a UNIX base is that it is very versatile and can very easily be expanded upon, which is why UNIX, Linux, BSD (and OS X) have sustained favorably over such a longer period of time than Windows. Linux (now on kernel 2.6) looks nothing like the original kernel 1.0 days; but it still uses the same basic structure and text-based commands. So it is fair to assume that OS X will be with us for quite a while. To be honest, though Windows changes it's names, it's really the same base as well (being the NT kernel, of which Vista is now version 6 or 7 I believe). When there finally is a major change, I believe the most notable part will be a UNIX-based custom kernel with a completely new GUI.

 

[Off topic]I didn't recognize you with your new username, Paul [/Off topic].

 

Paul, not to be pedantic here, but this was what I was thinking. Just did not say it as eloquently as you did.

Thanks for the info, it is good to be well informed,
S

 

I think the whole vista thing backfired.
I really believe the evolutionary strategy Apple has is smarter.
I just spent 3 hours this morning helping the secretary get acquainted with Vista, and she still is not capable of using vista as well as XP. There just is no point to foist a mass of features in one release breaking a bunch of capability. Besides Tiger still look a lot like 10.2 and could be used by the secretary.

-I just think this step-function release cycle it is a bad strategy, but again MS doesn't control the hardware.

 

Forgive me if it seemed that I was somehow trying to correct you; that wasn't my intention. I was merely agreeing with you by expressing my own thoughts. You were absolutely right, and we're on the same page.

 

I don't see how what they're doing is any different. I prefer slower OS releases since it means you don't have to spend money as often.

Which is...silly frankly For his/her purposes it would be the exact same thing. I mean what, they're confused by the icons looking different?

 

Maybe OS XI when everything becomes more touchscreen. Apple will have to compete in this field as MS is serious about Touchscreen for the future.

 

And the iPhone and iPod Touch, both based on OS X, are not serious and competing in the field of touchscreens?

 

Not as much as a touchscreen Mac would be competing with the Microsoft Surface.

 

Maybe, but the iPhone and iPod Touch are real products anyone can go out and buy.

And anyway, the interface is pretty irrelevant to the OS. Neither Microsoft nor Apple are going to create some brand new OS just because the interface has changed.

 

Yeah, I decided to be a conformist. I kinda feel bad.