NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.
All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report
Stories, comments, journals, and other submissions on use Perl; are Copyright 1998-2006, their respective owners.
OSX (Score:1)
versions OS 9 etc.?
This of course makes
Were that I say, pancakes?
Re:OSX (Score:2)
No, it's not. There is no Mac OS 10. It is Mac OS X, version 10.
Afterall was it not common to call prior versions OS 9 etc.?
There is no version of Mac OS *after* version 9, so it isn't "prior" to anything. Mac OS X is not Mac OS; Mac OS 9 is not a prior version of Mac OS, it is the current version.
Mac OS and Mac OS X are different operating systems; it makes no sense to say that Mac OS X is a later version of the same OS, or that Mac OS 9 is an earlier version of the same OS. They are not the same OS, they are different. Hence, they have different names.
Regardless, no, no one called it "OS 9" or "OS 8". I'd never once heard that, until Mac OS X came along.
This of course makes
It is not redundant at all, as "X" is not part of the version, it is part of the name. It sounds redundant when you say it out loud, but it is not actually redundant.
And there is no such thing operating system as "MacOS".
Reply to This
Parent
Re:OSX (Score:1)
I did. And still do. Please don't confuse what you have never heard with what doesn't exist. In the context of "Mac OS," I find "OS 8", "OS 9", and "OS X" all perfectly acceptable.
Re:OSX (Score:1)
And while you may find them acceptable, I do not. You are free to find them acceptable, and I am free to think they are stupid.
Re:OSX (Score:1)
To be honest, I still use the term 'System', as in System 6, System 7, System 9 =)
---ict / Spoon
Re:OSX (Score:1)