[Luca]

Originally Posted by chucker I fail to understand how "OS ecks" is "improperly identifying". Heck, what about internationalization? Do you consider "OS zehn" "improper"? "OS dix"?

I'm not sure about translating "ten" into different languages.Since "X" is the Roman numeral for the number 10, the name is constantly being translated into English (as intlplby pointed out, it should be pronounced "Oh Es Decem" if you're really stuck on using Roman). On the other hand, the product's name is OS X. If you say "Mazda 3" in another language, do you translate the "3" into the other language or not? Do Italians call it a "Mazda Tre"?

EDIT: Oh yeah. I just remembered that the Fiat Cinquecento is called simply the 500 by English speakers. So I guess you could translate it. Whatever.

But yeah. The fact that people who work for Apple (including The Big Steve himself) call it "Oh Es Ten" should be enough to tell you the right way of pronouncing it. People will still get the point if you say "Oh Es Ecks" but it is not correct (even if a few people think it is). It's like writing "alot" or misusing apostrophes. People will still understand, but that doesn't make it any more correct.

[RacerX]

Originally Posted by chucker It arguably also represents Unix underpinnings as well as a relation to NeXT.

How can it arguably be either of those when it isn't.

From day 1 (for those of us outside Apple) at WWDC 98 it has been "Mac OS 10", specially as it was spoken of before it was seen in print.

And originally the big question was "why is Apple was skipping Mac OS 9?"

If it was merely version ten, they would have just gone to 11 or beyond by now.

Apple has spent a ton of time and money branding Mac OS X, which was why they dropped their normal version numbering. And actually if it was merely "ex", they would have just gone to 11 or beyond by now.

Had they stayed with how they were originally releasing versions, then 10.0 would have been 10.0, 10.1 would have been 10.1, 10.2 would have been 10.5, 10.3 would have been 11.0, 10.4 would have been 11.5 and 10.5 would be 12.0.

And Apple isn't the first company to change it's version numbering... Sun change Solaris 2.7 to Solaris 7. And Solaris 8, 9 and 10 are actually Solaris 2.8, 2.9 and 2.10.

Don't be expecting version 11.x from Apple anytime in the near future... not as long as Apple thinks that the name "Mac OS X" has legs.

[Robo]

I pronounce it the right way.

[GOLDFRAPP]

However, there are instances when one should pronounce it as 'oh es eks' one way or the other, e.g. www.apple.com/macosx.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by RacerX Apple has spent a ton of time and money branding Mac OS X, which was why they dropped their normal version numbering. And actually if it was merely "ex", they would have just gone to 11 or beyond by now. Had they stayed with how they were originally releasing versions, then 10.0 would have been 10.0, 10.1 would have been 10.1, 10.2 would have been 10.5, 10.3 would have been 11.0, 10.4 would have been 11.5 and 10.5 would be 12.0. And Apple isn't the first company to change it's version numbering... Sun change Solaris 2.7 to Solaris 7. And Solaris 8, 9 and 10 are actually Solaris 2.8, 2.9 and 2.10. Don't be expecting version 11.x from Apple anytime in the near future... not as long as Apple thinks that the name "Mac OS X" has legs.

I think the reason Apple has kept OS X around for so long (without moving on to OS XI) is that OS 9 -> OS X was a huge jump - basically, a completely different operating system.

If Apple went from OS X -> OS XI right away, it would be a comparatively miniscule change.

It's almost as if they consider System 1 - OS 9 as point releases for the original Mac OS, in the same way Tiger, Leopard, etc. are for OS X.

And you're right - there was also a lot of branding for OS X. The "X" logo has effectively replaced the original MacOS logo.

[Banana]

The version changes has been anything but consistent.

System 7 was pretty much System 6 expanded. System 8 and 9 was a major update with support for stuff then some more. System 10 is essentially a new OS from grounds up.

Incidentally, where is the System 1-5? Almost nobody knows what it was; and wouldn't have recongized it if it hit them on the face. (I'm thinking that Apple ][ used System 3 or something like that).

The same can be said about Windows; we went from Windows to Windows 3.1 to Windows 95/98/Me then Win XP and now Windows Vista. There's also Windows Workgroup which later become Windows NT before merging with XP.

[Luca]

Eh, I'd say there were at least two distinctive versions of the classic OS. Systems 1-4 were all single-task only. System 5 introduced MultiFinder (run multiple applications at once) as an option, with System 6 being released very soon after. I'd say 1-6 qualify as one version. 7-9 are the next version, with always-on multitasking, improved graphics technology, and a huge number of other changes from the earlier versions. OS 8 and 9 were basically just rehashes of system 7, with improvements comparable to one or two OS X point releases.

I think the reason Apple's keeping the OS X name for so long is because they might want to get away from the old idea that their previous "major OS releases" were really just rehashes. The underlying OS in 10.4 is very similar to what it was in 10.0, but there have obviously been a lot of improvements since then. The same applies to Systems 7-9 - the underlying code remained basically the same, although there were still a lot of more superficial changes from one version to the next.

EDIT: Banana, 7 was radically different from 6. It was almost as different as OS X was from OS 9. 6 was pretty much an advanced version of versions 1-5. 1-5 came out pretty quickly and without much fanfare. 5 introduced MultiFinder, but 6 came out not long after and replaced it, so that's the one people remember.

Another interesting fact is that when Apple was working on what is now known as OS 8, the working title was OS 7.7. That's how similar 8 was to 7.6. When their next generation OS (Copland) was delayed, they changed it to OS 8 to keep it fresh. The same thing happened with OS 9, whose original working title was OS 8.7. OS 9 is even more similar to OS 8 than 8 was to 7, but all three versions were pretty much the same at the core.

[RichieB]

I pronounce OS X as Oh-Es-Ex and X-Men as Ten-Men.

There.

[turbulentfurball]

To add to Luca's post, I believe that OS 9 was so called in order that OS X could be called OS X without skipping 9, despite the fact that the similarities between OS 8 and OS 9 didn't particularly merit a new version number.

[Robo]

Thanks, Luca!

Yeah, I knew OS 7 (called System 7 then, right?) was a pretty huge jump. I just meant that, in general, the classic OSes (1-6, and, as you mention, 8 and 9) are more akin to point releases than what we would now consider entirely different versions.

[Banana]

Hmm- Interesting. I seem to recall thinking to myself that System 7 wasn't all that different from System 6, and that System 8 was a noticable difference. I've always thought System 7 as more stable compared to System 8.

But I'm probably wrong, so I'll take your word for it. Thanks for the stories, Luca.

[Joshua]

Originally Posted by chucker And? That renders people who use different pronunciation 'lesser'?

Well since you asked...YES!

[ast3r3x]

Originally Posted by GOLDFRAPPLOVESCAPS However, there are instances when one should pronounce it as 'oh es eks' one way or the other, e.g. www.apple.com/macosx.

Of course going by your logic if you said that the person would end up with 'wwwdotappledotcomslashmacosx'

If you are going to be a literal jackass, you can't pick and choose.

[Windswept]

Originally Posted by adambrennan I say Ten. Makes sense coming after OS9

Well, exactly.

I used OS 9 at work, so it never occurred to me to say anything but OS ten.

If someone were to say OS Ex to me, it would probably take me a second before I realized to what they were referring.

*shrug*

[Luca]

Originally Posted by Banana ...I've always thought System 7 as more stable compared to System 8...

Hahaha, oh wow. Yeah, people hated 7 when it first came out, and it took a LONG time for them to accept it. It was somewhat buggy and unstable, but worse, it was a whole lot bigger and more RAM hungry than system 6. The whole of System 6 could fit on a single floppy disk and used 600kb of RAM, but System 7 used twice as much RAM and required a hard drive for installation.

As for what the old Apples (not Macs) used... I don't know all the details but I know Apple had an old OS called Apple DOS. There were others, too, I think.

[GOLDFRAPP]

Originally Posted by ast3r3x3does3not3like3caps if you said that the person would end up with 'wwwdotappledotcomslashmacosx'

That person must be you.

[Luca]

Or maybe "doubleudoubleudoubleudotappledotcomslashmacos x"

[GOLDFRAPP]

Originally Posted by Luca Or maybe "doubleudoubleudoubleudotappledotcomslashmacos x"

Another possible case.

[BarracksSi]

Put an option for "both", and I'll vote. Between the two, I do say "oh ess ten" more often, though, while PC-using friends say "oh ess ex" most of the time.

[RacerX]

Originally Posted by Banana Incidentally, where is the System 1-5? Almost nobody knows what it was; and wouldn't have recongized it if it hit them on the face.

Well, I think I would recognize System 1-5 if I saw them (as I have every version of the Mac OS from System 0.98 on).

Originally Posted by Banana The same can be said about Windows; we went from Windows to Windows 3.1 to Windows 95/98/Me then Win XP and now Windows Vista. There's also Windows Workgroup which later become Windows NT before merging with XP.

Windows 1.0 was a shell to provide a GUI for applications in DOS (first used with Excel with Apple's permission in exchange for Excel being released for the mac first). Windows 2.0 expanded on Windows 1.0, but not by much. Windows 3.0, 3.1 and 3.11 for Workgroups are all pretty much the same. Windows 95/98/Me are actually Windows 4.x.

Windows NT was based on OS/2 (codeveloped with IBM) and was originally to be released as OS/2 NT. Microsoft change this to Windows NT and released the first version, Windows NT 3.1, at about the same time as Windows 3.1. This release was followed by Windows NT 3.5. Windows NT 3.1 and 3.5 (and 3.51) all used the same GUI as Windows 3.x.

Windows NT 4.0 was released in 1996 and used the same GUI as Windows 95. Windows 2000 was actually Windows NT 5.0 and Windows XP is actually Windows NT 5.1. Windows 2003 Server is actually Windows NT 5.2.

Hopefully that puts the whole Windows versions into perspective. I also have every version of Windows from 1.0 to 2000 Professional.

Originally Posted by Luca Another interesting fact is that when Apple was working on what is now known as OS 8, the working title was OS 7.7. That's how similar 8 was to 7.6. When their next generation OS (Copland) was delayed, they changed it to OS 8 to keep it fresh. The same thing happened with OS 9, whose original working title was OS 8.7. OS 9 is even more similar to OS 8 than 8 was to 7, but all three versions were pretty much the same at the core.

That isn't accurate... Mac OS 8 was the introduction of many core elements from the Copland project including partial protected memory and cooperative multitasking built into the system (later versions of 7 used an extension). Mac OS 8 was as far above System 7 as System 7 was above System 6. And the integration of Copland technologies was completed in 8.5/8.6 (which included Carbon which was developed from the Copland application environment).

[Partial]

o-sex ftw

[MrENGLISH™]

I know "Oh Es Ten" is the proper way to say OS X but until OS XI/OS 11 comes out I'm going to refer to it as "Oh Es Ex".

Why?

Because us "dimwits" can

EDIT: I entered the Mac World after OS X came out.

[drewprops]

"Oxy Four Point Ex"
my own code~

[remlemasi]

It is clear to me that the majority of people who say "10" used Macs before the switch to OS X. The people who say "Ex" entered the Mac world after the switch. Why can't we jsut coexist? Veterans, love the babies! Babies, respect the veterans!

I really don't think it is a big deal. However, I must say that ever since I learned that "10" is what Steve Jobs says, I've been more self-conscious about whether I say "10" or "Ex" (I used to/kinda still say "Ex" but I am trying to change because Steve Jobs says "10").

(As you probably noticed, I am a recent and HAPPY switcher who is just damn glad to be using Mac OS X [whatever it's called!])

[scratt]

It's certainly not worth falling out over.. You are right theelmerguy.

But I have been using Macs since the IIci and IIfx days and still prefer to say "ex", in my head at least...

This is the strange thing.. We did a sort of (unscientific) test here today.
I said OS X out loud and then said it in my head..

In my head I say "exx", out loud I say "Ten".

[blakbyrd]

When OS X premiered, I'd sometimes refer to it as "Mac OS [Ex]". Then afterwards, I just made it a habit of saying "Mac OS [Ten]".

[Bryson]

Oh Eh Sex

[Is it 1981?]

What about Switchers and people new to Apple? It's perfectly understandable for them to think it's pronounced Oh Ess Ex due (as mentioned before) to lots of references to Mac OS X 10.4. Plus, they might not realise there were nine previous versions of the OS before the current revision and therefore it's natural they'd read the 'X' as a letter and not as a numeral.

Just for the poll, I read it as Ex, but say it as Ten.

[scratt]

There is also the before hinted at but worth repeating matter that OS "Ex" sounds more exciting than "Ten". It's the 'X' factor that OS X brings to Operating Systems, and so on... Macs are mysterious to most people, and therefore 'X' is quite suitable.. I am sure that nuance is not lost on the Apple maketting bods.

The big X on the OS boxes also tends to emphasise the "X" as an "X" and not a 10..

[intlplby]

This reminds me of Racer X from SpeedRacer

should we call him Racer Ten or Racer Decem