> By saying that 11 is what 10 was to Mac OS 9 implies the same substantial changes made to the whole system which is not the case here, at all.
This is not a rational metric for what a "full version tick" should look like. OS X was arguably a different operating system than Mac OS 9. If that was the bar to cross, Linux would still be 1.xx.xx and Windows would be Windows 3.xxx.
Considering they had a major break in backwards compatibility last year when they dropped 32 bit support, that was arguably the better year to do a major version tick.
This is not a rational metric for what a "full version tick" should look like. OS X was arguably a different operating system than Mac OS 9. If that was the bar to cross, Linux would still be 1.xx.xx and Windows would be Windows 3.xxx.
Considering they had a major break in backwards compatibility last year when they dropped 32 bit support, that was arguably the better year to do a major version tick.