Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #73296 > unrolled thread

Hint on future branding of OS-X

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  Hint on future branding of OS-X JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-16 16:37 -0400
    Re: Hint on future branding of OS-X Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-04-17 12:10 +1200
      Re: Hint on future branding of OS-X Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-04-16 20:38 -0400
        Re: Hint on future branding of OS-X JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-16 22:52 -0400
          Re: Hint on future branding of OS-X Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-04-17 16:56 +1200
            Re: Hint on future branding of OS-X Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-04-17 10:10 -0400
              Re: Hint on future branding of OS-X Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-04-17 08:15 -0700
                Re: Hint on future branding of OS-X Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-17 17:44 +0000
                  Re: Hint on future branding of OS-X Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-04-17 10:57 -0700
                    Re: Hint on future branding of OS-X Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-04-17 11:02 -0700
                    Re: Hint on future branding of OS-X Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-17 19:05 +0000
              Re: Hint on future branding of OS-X Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-04-18 10:05 +1200
                Re: Hint on future branding of OS-X Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-04-17 19:13 -0400
                  Re: Hint on future branding of OS-X Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-04-18 12:05 +1200
                    Re: Hint on future branding of OS-X Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> - 2015-04-17 23:06 -0400
                      Re: Hint on future branding of OS-X Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2015-04-18 15:37 +1200
              Re: Hint on future branding of OS-X Patty Winter <patty1@wintertime.com> - 2015-04-17 23:46 +0000
                Re: Hint on future branding of OS-X JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-17 20:00 -0400
    Re: Hint on future branding of OS-X Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-04-16 21:20 -0700

#73296 — Hint on future branding of OS-X

From a Sony-Canada contract with Netflix:

2.4A Exception Claiuse for Standard Definition, Uncompressed Digital
Outputs on Wondiws-based PCs, Macs running OS X or higher and PCs
running Chrome OS with a Widevide DRM described in Section 1.2.3.): HDCP
must be enabled on all uncompressed digital outputs (e.g. HDMI, Disoplay
Port), unless the customer's system cannot support HDCP.


The interesting part is the assumption in contracts that OS X
(pronounced "ten") could go to OS eleven within the timeframe of the
contract (generally a couple of years).

and BTW, Better Call Saul contracts were signed in december 2013, well
before it became public that the series would actually be made.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#73301

In article <55301d7f$0$1615$c3e8da3$12bcf670@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> From a Sony-Canada contract with Netflix:
> 
> 2.4A Exception Claiuse for Standard Definition, Uncompressed Digital
> Outputs on Wondiws-based PCs, Macs running OS X or higher and PCs
> running Chrome OS with a Widevide DRM described in Section 1.2.3.): HDCP
> must be enabled on all uncompressed digital outputs (e.g. HDMI, Disoplay
> Port), unless the customer's system cannot support HDCP.
> 
> 
> The interesting part is the assumption in contracts that OS X
> (pronounced "ten") could go to OS eleven within the timeframe of the
> contract (generally a couple of years).
> 
> and BTW, Better Call Saul contracts were signed in december 2013, well
> before it became public that the series would actually be made.

You're reading far too much into the simple wording of a third-party
contract which really has nothing to do with Apple. It's possible that
Mac OS X may become "Mac OS XI" or be renamed to something else
entirely at some stage, but Sony are not going to be in any position to
know that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73308

In article <170420151210129973%YourName@YourISP.com>,
 Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> In article <55301d7f$0$1615$c3e8da3$12bcf670@news.astraweb.com>, JF
> Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> 
> > From a Sony-Canada contract with Netflix:
> > 
> > 2.4A Exception Claiuse for Standard Definition, Uncompressed Digital
> > Outputs on Wondiws-based PCs, Macs running OS X or higher and PCs
> > running Chrome OS with a Widevide DRM described in Section 1.2.3.): HDCP
> > must be enabled on all uncompressed digital outputs (e.g. HDMI, Disoplay
> > Port), unless the customer's system cannot support HDCP.
> > 
> > 
> > The interesting part is the assumption in contracts that OS X
> > (pronounced "ten") could go to OS eleven within the timeframe of the
> > contract (generally a couple of years).
> > 
> > and BTW, Better Call Saul contracts were signed in december 2013, well
> > before it became public that the series would actually be made.
> 
> You're reading far too much into the simple wording of a third-party
> contract which really has nothing to do with Apple. It's possible that
> Mac OS X may become "Mac OS XI" or be renamed to something else
> entirely at some stage, but Sony are not going to be in any position to
> know that.

Yeah, it seems like they're just allowing for the possibility.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73315

On 15-04-16 20:38, Barry Margolin wrote:

> Yeah, it seems like they're just allowing for the possibility.


Correct. But what it says is that what has become a brand "OS-X" is not
assumed to remain such forever.

(It could be argued that once Apple released 10.10 , the odds if OS-X
moving to OS-XI seems to be lower.


BTW, for a glimpse into the types of restrictions the old media impose
on distributors:

> https://wikileaks.org/sony/docs/05/docs/@Deals/Rogers/Sched%20C%20from%20Rogers-SPT%20Canada%20VOD%20Amdmt%208%20(23SEP10)%20maa.doc.pdf

You'll see the advantage of having integrated displays in the iMac as
opposed to separate ones which require HDMI and HDCP.  Not sure what
Apple negotiated with regards to Airplay.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73325

In article <5530755d$0$54657$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 15-04-16 20:38, Barry Margolin wrote:
> > 
> > Yeah, it seems like they're just allowing for the possibility.
> 
> Correct. But what it says is that what has become a brand "OS-X" is not
> assumed to remain such forever.

Except that's only their (and your) opinion. It's not based on any
actual facts.



> (It could be argued that once Apple released 10.10 , the odds if OS-X
> moving to OS-XI seems to be lower.

Apple would be better off dropping the silly "X" entirely and simply
having iOS and MacOS ... or possibly at some stage simply AppleOS.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73337

In article <170420151656392409%YourName@YourISP.com>,
 Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> In article <5530755d$0$54657$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af@news.astraweb.com>, JF
> Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> > On 15-04-16 20:38, Barry Margolin wrote:
> > > 
> > > Yeah, it seems like they're just allowing for the possibility.
> > 
> > Correct. But what it says is that what has become a brand "OS-X" is not
> > assumed to remain such forever.
> 
> Except that's only their (and your) opinion. It's not based on any
> actual facts.
> 
> 
> 
> > (It could be argued that once Apple released 10.10 , the odds if OS-X
> > moving to OS-XI seems to be lower.
> 
> Apple would be better off dropping the silly "X" entirely and simply
> having iOS and MacOS ... or possibly at some stage simply AppleOS.

It was called simply MacOS before they converted to the Unix-based OS.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73338

In article <barmar-B901FA.10101817042015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>,
Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> > > (It could be argued that once Apple released 10.10 , the odds if OS-X
> > > moving to OS-XI seems to be lower.
> > 
> > Apple would be better off dropping the silly "X" entirely and simply
> > having iOS and MacOS ... or possibly at some stage simply AppleOS.
> 
> It was called simply MacOS before they converted to the Unix-based OS.

It was originally called Macintosh System <number>, and then when Apple
started licensing the OS to other hardware manufacturers, they changed
it to MacOS <number>.  After Mac OS 9, it became Mac OS X (pronounced
Mac OS Ten).  And the "X" stuck.  Maybe in ten years, it will be Mac OS
X 20.0.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73356

In message <170420150815277551%michelle@michelle.org> 
  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <barmar-B901FA.10101817042015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>,
> Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

>> > > (It could be argued that once Apple released 10.10 , the odds if OS-X
>> > > moving to OS-XI seems to be lower.
>> > 
>> > Apple would be better off dropping the silly "X" entirely and simply
>> > having iOS and MacOS ... or possibly at some stage simply AppleOS.
>> 
>> It was called simply MacOS before they converted to the Unix-based OS.

> It was originally called Macintosh System <number>, and then when Apple
> started licensing the OS to other hardware manufacturers, they changed
> it to MacOS <number>.

No. The only OS that was ever licensed was System 7.x

MacOS 8 and MacOS 9 where never licensed.

> After Mac OS 9, it became Mac OS X

Nope, it became "OS X".

-- 
He'd never asked for an exciting life. What he really liked, what he
sought on every occasion, was boredom. The trouble was that boredom
tended to explode in your face. Just when he thought he'd found it he'd
be suddenly involved in what he supposed other people - thoughtless,
feckless people - would call an adventure. And he'd be forced to visit
many strange lands and meet exotic and colourful people, although not
for very long because usually he'd be running. He'd seen the creation of
the universe, although not from a good seat, and had visited Hell and
the afterlife. He'd been captured, imprisoned, rescued, lost and
marooned. Sometimes it had all happened on the same day.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73358

In article <slrnmj2hln.p2a.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> > After Mac OS 9, it became Mac OS X
> 
> Nope, it became "OS X".

Nope, it became Mac OS X, and later became OS X.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73359

In article <170420151057160103%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <slrnmj2hln.p2a.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> 
> > > After Mac OS 9, it became Mac OS X
> > 
> > Nope, it became "OS X".
> 
> Nope, it became Mac OS X, and later became OS X.

That change came with 10.8, Mountain Lion.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_OS_X>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73366

In message <170420151057160103%michelle@michelle.org> 
  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <slrnmj2hln.p2a.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>> > After Mac OS 9, it became Mac OS X
>> 
>> Nope, it became "OS X".

> Nope, it became Mac OS X, and later became OS X.

OK, that could be, but "MacOS" was never licensed.

-- 
Mickey and Mallory know the difference between right and wrong; the just
don't give a damn.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73370

In article <barmar-B901FA.10101817042015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>,
Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <170420151656392409%YourName@YourISP.com>,
>  Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > In article <5530755d$0$54657$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af@news.astraweb.com>, JF
> > Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> > > On 15-04-16 20:38, Barry Margolin wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Yeah, it seems like they're just allowing for the possibility.
> > > 
> > > Correct. But what it says is that what has become a brand "OS-X" is not
> > > assumed to remain such forever.
> > 
> > Except that's only their (and your) opinion. It's not based on any
> > actual facts.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > (It could be argued that once Apple released 10.10 , the odds if OS-X
> > > moving to OS-XI seems to be lower.
> > 
> > Apple would be better off dropping the silly "X" entirely and simply
> > having iOS and MacOS ... or possibly at some stage simply AppleOS.
> 
> It was called simply MacOS before they converted to the Unix-based OS.

Yep, that's partly why I used it. In fact MacOS 8 and 9 are still
arguably the best operating systems Apple has ever made, before design
silliness and pointless "features" really started becoming a nuisance.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73374

In article <180420151005542969%YourName@YourISP.com>,
 Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> In article <barmar-B901FA.10101817042015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>,
> Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > In article <170420151656392409%YourName@YourISP.com>,
> >  Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > > In article <5530755d$0$54657$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af@news.astraweb.com>, JF
> > > Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> > > > On 15-04-16 20:38, Barry Margolin wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yeah, it seems like they're just allowing for the possibility.
> > > > 
> > > > Correct. But what it says is that what has become a brand "OS-X" is not
> > > > assumed to remain such forever.
> > > 
> > > Except that's only their (and your) opinion. It's not based on any
> > > actual facts.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > (It could be argued that once Apple released 10.10 , the odds if OS-X
> > > > moving to OS-XI seems to be lower.
> > > 
> > > Apple would be better off dropping the silly "X" entirely and simply
> > > having iOS and MacOS ... or possibly at some stage simply AppleOS.
> > 
> > It was called simply MacOS before they converted to the Unix-based OS.
> 
> Yep, that's partly why I used it. In fact MacOS 8 and 9 are still
> arguably the best operating systems Apple has ever made, before design
> silliness and pointless "features" really started becoming a nuisance.

But they're radically different from OS X -- it's a totally new 
operating system from the ground up, not just a new version of the same 
OS. Using the same name for both would be inappropriate.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73378

In article <barmar-DE0002.19130417042015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>,
Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <180420151005542969%YourName@YourISP.com>,
>  Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > In article <barmar-B901FA.10101817042015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>,
> > Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > In article <170420151656392409%YourName@YourISP.com>,
> > >  Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <5530755d$0$54657$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af@news.astraweb.com>, JF
> > > > Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> > > > > On 15-04-16 20:38, Barry Margolin wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Yeah, it seems like they're just allowing for the possibility.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Correct. But what it says is that what has become a brand "OS-X" is
> > > > > not
> > > > > assumed to remain such forever.
> > > > 
> > > > Except that's only their (and your) opinion. It's not based on any
> > > > actual facts.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > (It could be argued that once Apple released 10.10 , the odds if OS-X
> > > > > moving to OS-XI seems to be lower.
> > > > 
> > > > Apple would be better off dropping the silly "X" entirely and simply
> > > > having iOS and MacOS ... or possibly at some stage simply AppleOS.
> > > 
> > > It was called simply MacOS before they converted to the Unix-based OS.
> > 
> > Yep, that's partly why I used it. In fact MacOS 8 and 9 are still
> > arguably the best operating systems Apple has ever made, before design
> > silliness and pointless "features" really started becoming a nuisance.
> 
> But they're radically different from OS X -- it's a totally new 
> operating system from the ground up, not just a new version of the same 
> OS. Using the same name for both would be inappropriate.

And yet although under the hood Mac OS X was different (early Beta
versions purposely looked very similar to OS 9) Apple still called it
"ten" as the follow-on from "9", rather than coming up with an actual
new name of some sort.

Besides, Americans continually prove that the name means nothing ...
just look at all the "radically different" TV show / movie "reboots" /
"reimaginings" / "remakes" that idiotically re-use the original's name.
(Even words mean nothing since they have their own "radically
different" definitions to some English words, not to mention incorrect
spellings.)

Plus, with all the new people coming to the Mac recently, the majority
may well never even have used or knew about MacOS 9 and earlier,
especially by the time any renamed version is released.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73394

In article <180420151205424678%YourName@YourISP.com>,
 Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> And yet although under the hood Mac OS X was different (early Beta
> versions purposely looked very similar to OS 9) Apple still called it
> "ten" as the follow-on from "9", rather than coming up with an actual
> new name of some sort.

Yes, there was a bit of continuity there.

And they used 10.0 as the first version of Mac OS X, and since then have 
only been incrementing the minor version number. They're definitely not 
totally consistent about it. I think they were trying to say "It's 
totally new under the hood, but users familiar with the old OS will feel 
like it's just an incremental improvement.

But it's still better than Microsoft's crazy numbering for Windows 
versions. They keep switching between simple version numbers (Windows 
3.0), year of release (Windows 98, Windows 2000), random abbreviations 
(Windows NT), and words (Windows Vista).

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73397

In article <barmar-18CF81.23063717042015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>,
Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <180420151205424678%YourName@YourISP.com>,
>  Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> >
> > And yet although under the hood Mac OS X was different (early Beta
> > versions purposely looked very similar to OS 9) Apple still called it
> > "ten" as the follow-on from "9", rather than coming up with an actual
> > new name of some sort.
> 
> Yes, there was a bit of continuity there.
> 
> And they used 10.0 as the first version of Mac OS X, and since then have 
> only been incrementing the minor version number. They're definitely not 
> totally consistent about it. I think they were trying to say "It's 
> totally new under the hood, but users familiar with the old OS will feel 
> like it's just an incremental improvement.
> 
> But it's still better than Microsoft's crazy numbering for Windows 
> versions. They keep switching between simple version numbers (Windows 
> 3.0), year of release (Windows 98, Windows 2000), random abbreviations 
> (Windows NT), and words (Windows Vista).

They've even skipped "Windoze 9" entirely ... probably partly because
"8" and "9" make it look inferior to the Apple's "10" (but of course
Windoze always is inferior to the Mac OS).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73375

In article <barmar-B901FA.10101817042015@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu>,
Barry Margolin  <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

[unneeded quotage deleted]

 
>It was called simply MacOS before they converted to the Unix-based OS.

"Mac OS." And the first several iterations of OS X included "Mac," 
well after the conversion to a UNIX base and even after Apple got 
UNIX certification. The latter began with 10.5 in 2007, but Apple 
didn't drop the "Mac" until just a few years ago (10.8?).


Patty

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73377

On 15-04-17 19:46, Patty Winter wrote:

> UNIX certification. The latter began with 10.5 in 2007, but Apple 
> didn't drop the "Mac" until just a few years ago (10.8?).

"About this Mac" in Snow Leppard yields:

Mac OS X
Version 10.6.8
etc
etc
etc

In the System Profiler, "Software" Tab:
System Version:	Mac OS X 10.6.8 (10K549)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#73321

In article <55301d7f$0$1615$c3e8da3$12bcf670@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> From a Sony-Canada contract with Netflix:
> 
> 2.4A Exception Claiuse for Standard Definition, Uncompressed Digital
> Outputs on Wondiws-based PCs, Macs running OS X or higher and PCs
> running Chrome OS with a Widevide DRM described in Section 1.2.3.): HDCP
> must be enabled on all uncompressed digital outputs (e.g. HDMI, Disoplay
> Port), unless the customer's system cannot support HDCP.
> 
> 
> The interesting part is the assumption in contracts that OS X
> (pronounced "ten") could go to OS eleven within the timeframe of the
> contract (generally a couple of years).

It's not an assumption; it's a CYA by people who have no clue as to
what Apple will be doing.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web