Is it OS-Ten or OS-Ecks?
- From: osiris@xxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 06:28:23 GMT
Oh, sure, it followed OS9 so it must be OS-Ten but I think
Apple just couldn't resist the play on letters and digits
and went for what they thought would be cool --
that is, the X that simultaneously represents uniX and 10.
I personally believe that it is OS-Ecks just like
Linux, Ultrix, Xenix, AIX and even A/UX and, for that matter.
even Minix.
Because the X in Mac OS X is part of the name and not the version,
it will always be Mac OS X until they abandon Unix which may be never
or it may be in 15 years -- I can't imagine that I could be any good
at predicting the future.
When they realized their goof with Mac OS X 1.0 and went to
10.0 through 10.5, it was because they wanted to continue
the version numbering from 9 to 10 even though the OS got renamed
so I suppose we could eventually see a Mac OS X 11.0.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Is it OS-Ten or OS-Ecks?
- From: Davoud
- Re: Is it OS-Ten or OS-Ecks?
- From: Roger Johnstone
- Re: Is it OS-Ten or OS-Ecks?
- From: Marc Stibane
- Re: Is it OS-Ten or OS-Ecks?
- Prev by Date: Re: Weird alias left in trash - can´t empty
- Next by Date: Re: PowerMac G5 Checkstop LED
- Previous by thread: Options for Using Commercial Web-Site that "Requires" IE6
- Next by thread: Re: Is it OS-Ten or OS-Ecks?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|