Follow-up on OS names

I seem to have struck a chord with my post on Apple’s image, and I got a lot of really good points in the comments that I hadn’t really thought about. I’m gonna go ahead and bring those to the front page.

First, though, let me clarify that I don’t really dislike Apple. People tend to think that since I prefer to use PC’s, I’ve got some sort of death-wish for Macintosh, and that’s simply not true. Anyways, here’s my two (more) cents:

I dissagree. I don’t see how naming a the operating system after cats is “posh� or euphemistic. Its just a branding/marketing choice that is no different than Ford naming their cars with “f� names: Focus, Fairlane, Fiesta, etc. or, say, horse names: mustang, maverick, pinto. What’s the big deal? I see no pretentiousness in the cat names.
- tommyboy

They seem pretentious to me because of the way Apple presents itself. I see Apple as the “designer brand” of computers—owning an apple (laptops especially) is like wearing the Armani or the Gucci of the computing world. Apple products are clearly branded and made to look trendier, and in my opinion gaudier than most other computers. While there’s an aspect of cool to this, I think there’s also an aspect of faux-cool to it as well—just as with the clothes. So yes, the names are just a branding/marketing choice. I just disagree with the marketing, I guess.

Hey Jason, I enjoyed reading your viewpoint. Though, I think you might be mistaken about the use of the word euphemistic. Dictionary.com says this:

euphemistic

adj : of an inoffensive substitute for offensive terminology; “`peepee’ is a common euphemistic term� [syn: inoffensive] [ant: dysphemistic]

Perhaps a better way to phrase it might be “Apple has a tendency for hyperbole.� Or Apple is so pretentious.
-Van Secrist

Yes, this is correct—now that I read it again, I’m pretty sure “euphemistic” wasn’t at all what I was trying to say. I would now choose “I tend to pick on Apple because they’re more image-centric.”

I believe the ‘marketing names’ are to help distinguish between ‘versions’ of Mac OS X.

A single point upgrade in Classic Mac OS wouldn’t warrant $129. Who would pay to upgrade from 8.5 to 8.6?
-M

This is a really good reason to have names like this, I hadn’t thought of it. Despite the fact that the OS kernel did undergo significant changes, I think a lot of people wouldn’t feel too inclined to shell out for a .1-.2 style upgrade. But once again, while this warrants version names, it doesn’t mean they should call it “Panther.”

And what would you name an OS? Rock? Paper? Elephant? Please post an interesting alternative.
-Robert R. Fox

Naming things is very definitely not my specialty. It took me over a month to come up with Flicker Gaming, but I’ll give it a shot. How about, for the latest innovention:

Mac OS X: Dashboard

This name would reflect the most significantly flashy new feature, and in my mind it avoids the pitfall of seeming “shallow” or pointlessly “artsy.” (time: 5 minutes! a new record for something I liked!)