Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 13th Jun 2013 14:35 UTC
Mac OS X The third and final WWDC product I want to talk about is - of course - OS X 10.9 Mavericks. While iOS 7 was clearly the focus of this year's WWDC, its venerable desktop counterpart certainly wasn't left behind. Apple announced OS X 10.9 Mavericks, the first OS X release not to carry the name of a big cat.
Thread beginning with comment 564819
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
About time
by BallmerKnowsBest on Sat 15th Jun 2013 18:35 UTC
BallmerKnowsBest
Member since:
2008-06-02

first OS X release not to carry the name of a big cat.


FINALLY. It's amazing it took Apple so long to clue into the fact that the "big cats" naming scheme was complete idiocy. For one, they blew their wad too early by starting with the biggest cats - giving the perception that their newer releases are less powerful than the previous ones. Really, what sounds more impressive: OS X Lion? Or OS X De-clawed Overweight Housecat?

Which leads into the other problem: there was no rhyme or reason to the names, and no reliable way to tell which releases are newer. Both tigers and lions are larger & more powerful than mountain lions, so that means OS X Tiger & Lion must be newer than OS X Mountain Lion, right?

It almost feels like a deliberate way of making obnoxious hipsters feel special & "in the know". You know, the kind of insufferable tw@s who used to endlessly repeat the story of Clarus, the Dogcow (the dogcow goes "moof"... because cows go "moo" and dogs go "woof", lol get it lol?).

Reply Score: 1

RE: About time
by quackalist on Sat 15th Jun 2013 19:43 in reply to "About time"
quackalist Member since:
2007-08-27

Must be lucky guy not to know any obnoxious hipsters as I'd never heard the tale of Clarus the Dogcow before.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: About time
by osvil on Sun 16th Jun 2013 09:08 in reply to "About time"
osvil Member since:
2012-10-25

It is so much better a progression like 3.1 -> 95 -> 98 -> 2000 -> XP ->Vista -> 7 -> 8 (I am probably missing some version).

I think on mac there is an actual numerical version that makes sense and is widely used (in "about this mac" I get 10.8.4 and not the non-sense mountain lion marketing name). So it is not as bad.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: About time
by MOS6510 on Sun 16th Jun 2013 14:19 in reply to "RE: About time"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

You missed ME, but that's a good thing. Erasing ME from history and our collective memory would be great.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: About time
by BallmerKnowsBest on Sun 16th Jun 2013 17:08 in reply to "RE: About time"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

It is so much better a progression like 3.1 -> 95 -> 98 -> 2000 -> XP ->Vista -> 7 -> 8 (I am probably missing some version).

I think on mac there is an actual numerical version that makes sense and is widely used (in "about this mac" I get 10.8.4 and not the non-sense mountain lion marketing name). So it is not as bad.


LOL WUT? ...you do realize that 2000 comes after (19)98, which comes after (19)95... and that 8 comes after 7, right? RIGHT?!?!?

Reply Parent Score: 3