Apple Mac OS X 10 Years Old Today

More precisely, Mac OS X is based on FreeBSD.

Only three more releases til they have to find a new name. Maybe they can call it Mac OS XP.

Their OS would be this old if they adopted normal industry standards to name an OS. Call it OS XI or XII when you release a new OS. 10.1, 10.2 is an UPDATE. Get with the program Apple.

and freeBSD is based off of UNIX so you could say OSX is the most successful Unix distro for consumer's

Why do that? 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, etc. are essentially the same OS, just with upgrades done along the way.
Microsoft has crazy names for Windows, like Windows 2000, XP, Vista, 7, etc. However, they're just upgrades to Windows NT done along the way. Ubuntu names their version numbers off of the month they are released in.

So if you ask me, Apple has one of the more normal naming schemes than most OSs.

BUT, having said that, I wouldn't say there is an "industry standard" to name an OS. Companies can name it whatever they want.

I dont like apple but they build good products with luxurious price tags.

Giving people a subpar OS for 10 years.

Hated it when I had to use it for Xcode development for a semester.

Apple Macintosh computers started out on Motorola's 68K processors, which transitioned to the IBM PowerPC processors, then to Intel x86 processors.

Apple also had their own version of UNIX -- A/UX -- which could even run on a Mac II from 1987. This computer only had a 16MHz Motorola 68020 CPU and 1MB standard memory (but could go up to 128MBs), but needed a 68881 FPU for A/UX.

Small niggle.. In the second last sentence you say Leopard(10.6) was the last PPC native OSX. Leopard is not OS X 10.6... lol.. Try 10.5

For a 10 year old OS, it has done amazingly well.

The guy who said windows is a rehash of NT, yes it was, until Vista, which they totally re-engineered. XP was the last true NT based windows.

great point, but dont put vista, 7, and xp in the same catagory

xp is great
vista was a major step back
7 was what vista was supost to be, and i hate everything about it.

still use xp, and passing on vista and 7, because i hate them with a passion

Here's my gripe for the different versions of 10.1 to 10.6. While the user's interface looks similar, each iteration has lots of application incompatibilities and they constantly change their framework. The growing pains of unix like repositories existed very much along with OS X, having need new binaries after each kernal upgrade. Basically programs that work in 10.3 might work in 10.2, but will not work in 10.1. For open source software, you can just recompile them, but lots of binaries needed an upgrade, fix, or patch. Only recently it's been less painful, like 10.5 to 10.6 which is like a service pack release. When they dumped PPC to Intel, all hell broke loose for me, the 10.3 to 10.5 era. Because of this, I don't really believe in a true 10 years of OS X like WinXP due to migration pains.

i always liked vista never bluescreened, never ran slow( and i was running a pentium dual core @1.8 ghz and 2gb of ram)still running vista actually but now i overclocked to 3.6ghz and threw 4gb of ram and a 6850 and still feeling fresh. Maybe its because its fashionable to dis Vista and love 7 because to me neither seems faster (i triple boot ubuntu,7, and Vista(main).

I wonder how many days after Steve Jobs dies it will be till OSX is released for all X86 systems and not just ones built by Apple.

That would suck if Apple released it for all generic PC makers to use.

Why? Why would that suck?

How could it be a bad thing for Windows to have some real competition in the mainstream desktop OS space?

True windows would have competition....but it would be at the expense of quality for OSX. Dell, HP, will add their crapware to it which will cause problems and crashes that will be blamed on Apple by the consumer. Besides the OS and Hardware combo are what gives Apple its advantage in stability. Besides I seriously doubt Dell and HP will want to use hardware mandated by Apple.
The only reason I buy Apple products is because of the OS and hardware combo. I know it will work. I dont have to trouble shoot every other day and I can treat my computer like an appliance that does what I need it to do with minimal maintenace by me.
Everyone always pushes market share and competition....but the way I see; what for? Windows users will use windows because they think they are getting work done that cant be done on a Mac or OSX. And Apple users will buy Macs because we like the ease of use and functionality.

I don't think allowing it to run on any old hardware would have any impact on the quality of OSX. If you didn't want the crapware, you could still pay the premium prices and buy an Apple.

The majority of ordinary people use Windows because that's what they have, not because they like it particularly. I don't see how creating more choice would devalue or remove any of the options that are currently available...despite what Mr Jobs might want you to think.

I dont see how choice is limited.....consumers buy a mac or the buy a windows or build it them selves.

Honestly, I don't think I need to spent too long explaining how Apple limits choice....That's the entire business model. I understand why it's good for them, but it isn't very good for me, or for competition.

Natural evolution, survival of the fittest....Surely it's hard to argue against that being a good idea? The fittest personal computer for the majority of mainstream users might be OSX on cheap x86 hardware, but that is a choice denied to the world by Apple.

Opening up the closed systems at Apple would be a very questionable commercial decision for them. It might work out very well, but it might work out very very badly..a risk...and risks that big shouldn't be taken lightly. I understand why things are the way they are, but I wouldn't want anybody to think that Apple (or any business) does what it does in the interest of consumer choice.

Its one of several reasons Apple only sell a single computer out of twenty(!) world wide, while Microsoft enjoys Windows installed in eighteen of those. If the consumer wants tons of good quality software or enjoy a ton of good games its easy to see why most choose Windows, its the standard (with a huge margain) and hence has most software for it!

Not to mention you get those benefits cheaper as well!

As Apple, BMW,Rolex, Gucci and any othe over priced consumer products show that price is not always the route to profitablity. Apple does not wish to compete with Windows for market share. Why should they? Yea it gives you a choice in the cheap PC relm...but that catagory is saturated with cheap products..... hell all the other pc computer makers as a whole really dont have anything that sets it apart from any other PC maker. Why do you think companies are all jumping on Android...HP developing WebOS because they realize that in order to be profitable in the long term you have to set your products apart from everyone else's products in that category.
They see Apple being profitable even with smaller market share and still garner higher prices and developer support. Not to mention $51 Bil in the bank. I have read many CEO's of other pc makers stating that Apples closed system will fall to open, windows centric type paradigm. It hasnt happend. Besides, Apple learned from the past when they licesenced their OS in the and it failed....badly.

Branding is a good way to earn profit, its just amazing that apple managed to sell their usual one gen old regular pc hardware to as many as five percent.

If i purchased a BMW for instance like your example of brands, you get a way better car than if you purchased a cheap ford. It has a way more powerful engine, better transmission and better seats ect.

When purchasing a mac the purchaser get a regular PC with a different chassis and a different wheel to control it. The main computer components remains the same but then again its not the car industry where performance is one of the main metrics and apple for sure have avoided the performance discussion for a reason.

As to their company's computer sales - Their bank account is filled from their other devices, the computer revenue isn't impressive at all. If it weren't for the ipod sales not to long ago the mac would likely been in the grave today. Claiming apple is really successful in their computer division by referring to numbers from the entire company is well laughable.

Do you have a Mac? Do you have a BMW? Did you have a Ford? If you can answer yes to all...then you would realize that better built quality like uni-body construction, custom made motherboards and case which all point to refinement and overall engineering that HP, Dell, Acer does not do. Now, lets look at custom pc makers like Main Gear, Voodoo, Falcon Northwest. What do you get....you get an extreamly over priced computer with truely off the self parts with oragami type wiring and a fancy paint Job. is that really worth the price? To some yes. Its all in what you want to do and how much you like attention to detail, true customer service and quality product.
Besides a BMW still uses the same type of parts like a ford....tires, gas, oil, and also has a higher repair frequency than a ford.....and you still pay more.. So are you really getting what you paid for?
http://www.jdpower.com/autos/BMW/3-Series/2010/Sedan/
http://www.jdpower.com/autos/Ford/Taurus/2010/Sedan/

http://i.techrepublic.com.com/blog [...] in;content

The link above shows PC makers reliability during 2010

Oh and to say Apple sales are laughable when you consider that they cost more than the generic pc is is a flawed assumption.....

http://www.macrumors.com/2010/10/1 [...] 10-in-u-s/
http://www.appleinsider.com/articl [...] share.html

Sony is not even in the top 5...Market share is increasing all with out having to resort to price wars with HP, Dell Acer.

did u just seriously paste 2 blatant apple fanboy sites as sources?

Only the laptops sell these days and I'm sorry but my 10 year old computer gathering dust in the loft has the same kind of parts as the PC i'm using now, that doesnt mean that they perform the same does it?

I dont care about unibody, i care about how well the product performs and its actual usability how does its case have anything to do with that? Also pretty much every laptop motherboard is custom made hence the fact that you cant upgrade them

If you look at the source the "fanboy" site use then you would realize my point. Besides since you dont care about refinement....whats you argument against apple other than they cost too much or they use pc parts or Steve Jobs is evil 5 grader arguments?
And no the laptop motherboards are not custom made specific to dell, hp etc....they all use OEM motherboards to keep the cost down. The only thing custom is the case the motherboard is in.

mj4358: You're being a bit silly now...

Dell don't use custom made MB's for laptops? That just isn't true is it? Well? is it?

I haven't got a problem with Apple. They make great products which are very pretty. I have got a problem with you, saying:

That wouldn't suck at all....that would be great, that's all I was saying...

Well if the MB in laptops are not custom then how can dell sell a laptop for $500-600 dollars. Now think back when dell made the Adamo laptop to compete with Apples Macbook Air....how much was that? It was a hell of alot more than their more powerful $500-600 Laptops and thats partly due to having a custom made mother board.

Correction!!!!!!

"Well if the MB in laptops are not custom"

Well if the MB in laptops are custom

The above link of PC reliability you provided us shows that Apple pc's are more likely to have hardware malfunctions, looking in the "Any Failed Components Replaced" category several of the top Win PC brands have better rating. This likely point towards more software oriented issues with the Win PC's rather than hardware reliability. Also its alot of N/A it is in this chart pointing towards inconclusivness.

As for the gained marketshare of mac im amazed apple didn't gain any momentum when microsoft made their huge misstake called vista, it had poor reliability at start due to completly new driver model and it plagued the user with alot of security oriented features like uac. It only lead to the conclusion that the customers are loyal to windows.

Economy of scale. Dell make so many machines that it's no more expensive for them to have custom made boards than it would be to use existing ones. Also, there are no OEM laptop boards....well, virtually none:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/S [...] ,9396.html

Anyway, it's the same model as Apple in that respect. Who would use the Dell support and maintenance infrastructure if "just anybody" could buy the key parts direct from the manufactures and fit them?

Adamo was stupidly thin, that's why it was expensive.