Jump to content

MacOS 11 is the new minimum system version for running Second Life ???


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 100 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Damron Skytower said:

Really? So they actually call it that. I don't remember seeing that before now. Thank you.

MacOS has always been numbered, starting with System 1.0 in 1984.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_Mac_OS

With the return of Steve Jobs in 1997, the Mac transitioned to the NeXT inspired Mac OS X in 2001.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacOS

In 2002, Apple started using big cat names to make Mac OS X releases more easily memorable and distinguishable. They ran through all the suitable cats by 2013, and switched to scenic points of interest in California with OS X 10.9. Note the progression from "System Software" to "Classic Mac OS" to "Mac OS X" to "OS X" to "macOS".

I patiently await MaddyOS "Port Washington".

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

MacOS has always been numbered, starting with System 1.0 in 1984.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_Mac_OS

With the return of Steve Jobs in 1997, the Mac transitioned to the NeXT inspired Mac OS X in 2001.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacOS

In 2002, Apple started using big cat names to make Mac OS X releases more easily memorable and distinguishable. They ran through all the suitable cats by 2013, and switched to scenic points of interest in California with OS X 10.9. Note the progression from "System Software" to "Classic Mac OS" to "Mac OS X" to "OS X" to "macOS".

I patiently await MaddyOS "Port Washington".

At least they didn't name each after random chocolate products, like Android OS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in the camp of refusing to refer to OSX as MacOS... grrr.

MacOS to me goes to version 9.2 and everything after it is OSX. Now get off my lawn despite the X presumably meaning 10... which means version 11 should be OSXI... oh gosh I see the problem now.

I just think OSX was a nice way of specifying the nice unixy Macintosh operating system and not the cludgy mess that came before it but of course maybe that isn't necessary now since it isn't the 90s any more.

 

 

 

Edited by AmeliaJ08
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AmeliaJ08 said:

I'm in the camp of refusing to refer to OSX as MacOS... grrr.

MacOS to me goes to version 9.2 and everything after it is OSX. Now get off my lawn despite the X presumably meaning 10... which means version 11 should be OSXI... oh gosh I see the problem now.

I just think OSX was a nice way of specifying the nice unixy Macintosh operating system and not the cludgy mess that came before it but of course maybe that isn't necessary now since it isn't the 90s any more.

I refer to mine as Apple II. Now get off my lawn. :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 100 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...