Tomas Chlebek The next version of the operating system for Macs is being talked about as OS X with the designation 10.12. Recently, however, there have been speculations that it could have new markings.
Today, many people don't even realize that OS X is supposed to refer to the tenth version (X as the Roman ten) of the operating system for Macs. Its first version was released in 1984 on the Macintosh computer and was referred to simply as "System". Only with the release of version 7.6 was the name "Mac OS" created. This name was introduced after Apple began to license its operating system to third-party computer manufacturers as well, in order to clearly distinguish its operating system from others.
In 2001, Mac OS 9 was followed by Mac OS X. With it, Apple tried to significantly modernize its computer operating system. It combined the technologies of previous Mac OS versions with the NeXTSTEP operating system, which was part of Jobs' purchase of NeXT in 1996.
Through NeXSTSTEP, Mac OS acquired a Unix basis, which is indicated by the transition from Arabic numerals to Roman numerals. In addition to a significant change to the system's core, OS X also introduced a greatly modernized user interface named Aqua, which replaced the earlier Platinum.
Since then, Apple has introduced only decimal versions of Mac OS X. More significant naming changes occurred in 2012, when Mac OS X became just OS X, and in 2013, when the big cats in the version names replaced the places of the US state of California. However, these changes were clearly not accompanied by any major change in the system itself.
Major changes were reported between "System 1" and "Mac OS 9" such as switches to other file systems or the addition of multitasking, and between "Mac OS 9" and "Mac OS X" there are significant differences in the very foundation. These were motivated by the fact that previous versions of Apple's operating systems were technologically insufficient in relation to user requirements.
It would probably be imprudent to assume that such a fundamental change in the core of the system's functioning will not occur again in the history of Apple's computer operating systems, but it is perhaps quite reasonable not to expect it in the near future. OS X also survived the transition from PowerPC processors to Intel in 2005, the end of system compatibility with PowerPC processors in 2009, and the end of 32-bit architecture support in 2011.
So from a technological motivation point of view, it seems unlikely that an "eleventh" version of the system for Macs is coming anytime soon. Also, the user environment has changed many times, several times significantly, since the first version of OS X, but it never motivated the transition to a new labeling.
Currently, it seems that if Apple's computer operating system stops being called OS X, it won't be because of a change in its technology or appearance.
For example, the mentioned change in the naming of its versions, when the large felines were changed to places in California, speaks against the imminent transition from OS X to something else. Craig Federighi, Apple's head of software, introducing OS X Mavericks he mentioned, that the new OS X version naming system should last at least another ten years.
On the other hand, there have been at least two reports recently that may indicate that OS X will change to macOS.
Blogger John Gruber with conversation after the introduction of the Apple Watch, he asked Phil Schiller, Apple's head of marketing, about the name of the watch's operating system, watchOS. He didn't like the small letter at the beginning of the name. Schiller to him he replied, that according to him it works very well and that Gruber should wait for other names that will come in the future and which have been the source of many emotions in Apple.
In the future, according to Schiller, similar decisions will prove to be indeed correct. watchOS was named after the same key as iOS, and half a year later Apple introduced another operating system, this time for the fourth generation Apple TV, named tvOS.
The second report appeared at the end of March this year, when developer Guilherme Rambo discovered the designation "macOS" in the name of one system file, which had a different name in previous versions of the system. The original report said that the change occurred between versions 10.11.3 and 10.11.4, but it turns out that the same, identically named file is also present on computers running an older version of OS X, with a creation date of August 2015.
Also arguing against the relevance of this report to the renaming of Apple's computer operating system was the interpretation of the name, according to which "macOS" is often used by developers to make it easier to navigate between Apple platforms that are named after the same key.
Whether there is evidence for this or not, if the "OS X" name were to die, it would most likely do so in favor of the "macOS" name relative to other systems. However, it is still true that the only legitimate motivation now appears to be simple usefulness, or greater coherence in the naming of Apple's systems.
Blogger and designer Andrew Ambrosino basically confirms this concept in his article "macOS: It's time to take the next step". In the introduction, he writes that after fifteen years of the evolution of OS X it is time for a revolution in the form of macOS, but then he presents a concept that has several fundamental ideas, but in practice they manifest as minor, cosmetic modifications to the current form of OS X El Capitan .
The three basic ideas of his concept are: convergence of all Apple operating systems, a new system of organizing and working with files and emphasizing the social aspect of the system.
Converging all Apple operating systems should mean bringing macOS closer to others, which already share the basic source code, on top of which there are elements typical for the given platform and a user interface optimized for the primary type of interaction with the given system. For Ambrosino, this means more consistent application of the "Back to Mac" strategy that first appeared in OS X in the Lion version. macOS would get all the apps that Apple made for iOS, such as News and Health.
Ambrosin's concept of a more interactive system for working with files, focused on the user's specific momentary requirements, is taken over from the Upthere company. This eliminates the hierarchical organization of files into folders in many levels. Instead, it stores all files in one "folder" and then navigates through them using filters. The basic ones are photos and videos, music and documents. In addition to them, so-called "Loops" can be created, which are basically tags - groups of files created according to certain specifications, determined by the user.
The advantage of this system is supposed to be an organization better adapted to the way we work with files, whereby one file can be in several groups, for example, but it is actually only once in the storage. However, the current Finder can do the same, precisely through tags. The only thing the Upthere concept would change would be the ability to store files hierarchically without actually adding any others.
The third idea that Ambrosino describes in his article is probably the most interesting. It calls for better integration of social interactions, which the current form of OS X does not encourage much. In practice, this would be manifested mainly by the "Activity" tab in each application, where the activity of the given user's friends associated with the given application would be displayed, and the new form of the "Contacts" application, which would display all the activity associated with the given user's computer for each person (e - email conversations, shared files, photo albums, etc.). However, even this would not be a more fundamental innovation than what appeared between the tenth versions of OS X.
OS X seems to have entered a strange phase. On the one hand, its name does not fit in with all other Apple operating systems, it is functionally superior to its mobile and TV counterparts, and at the same time it lacks some of their elements. Its user experience is also somewhat inconsistent compared to other Apple operating systems in several ways.
On the other hand, the current marking is so established and its creation is associated with such a fundamental change that it can actually be talked about not as the tenth version of Mac OS, but as another era of Mac OS. About an era in which "decimalness" is due more to that Roman numeral ten than to the fact that the "X" in the name points to a Unix base.
The crucial question seems to be whether the Mac operating system will move closer or further away from iOS and others. Of course, it is not necessary to choose only between these two options, and the most realistic would be to expect some kind of combination of them, which is actually happening now. iOS is becoming more and more capable, and OS X is slowly but surely taking on the features of iOS.
In the end, it makes a lot of sense to aim products like iPad Air and MacBook at users with rather lower demands, iPad Pro and MacBook Air at medium-demanding users, and MacBook Pro, iMacs and Mac Pro at more demanding and even professionals. The iPad Air and Pro and the MacBooks and MacBook Airs may further combine to create a fairly even spectrum of capabilities from moderately advanced to highly advanced.
Even such an interpretation, however, does not follow from the current state of Apple's software and hardware offer, as it often seems that it creates increasingly capable and perhaps unnecessarily powerful products for the average consumer, and somewhat forgets the requirements of true professionals. At the last product presentation at the end of March, the iPad Pro was talked about as a device that represents the future of computing thanks to its great performance potential. The 12-inch MacBook is also talked about as a vision of the future of computing, but it is currently Apple's least powerful computer. But perhaps this is a slightly different discussion than what was originally the subject of this article.
If we return to the question of what will happen to the naming of OS X, we realize that this is both a potentially banal and a potentially complex topic. It is clear, however, that the system behind the naming is still at the center of the discussion regarding Apple, and we can speculate about its future, but we should (perhaps) not worry.
Thank you for the nice article?
I really hope that this version will bring the promised increase in system speed, because if anything El Capitan failed, this is it.
I wish they would restore the system to its original stability and speed... Instead we have a new and new version of poor quality every year.
Very nice article and thanks for it.
Maybe the MacBook is being talked about as the computer of the future precisely because it's the slowest… but you wouldn't know it at work. I know, it sounds paradoxical. It's the first computer where I don't care about technical parameter numbers. I replaced a 13 MacBookPro with it and wow - it's not actually slower than them. Apple wants its technology to be viewed through the prism of design and style, not numbers and technology.
It *is* slower in real life.
What did you actually say? According to you, the second statement refutes the first statement. Some subjective impressions are not a criterion for measuring computer speed...
Good article, there is no need to comment on the content, everything has been answered.
Great article! Thank you
"what does the transition from Latin numerals to Roman numerals refer to" ??
You probably meant the transition from Arabic numerals to Roman numerals.
Well, I didn't realize that we have a Latin alphabet, but Arabic numerals :-) Thanks for the reminder, fixed.
Once again an article where someone thought about it and didn't just copy it, as is the custom nowadays, especially with the competition. Thanks.