Some thoughts on the problem of choosing an OS name. No real ideas to present, just mulling over the issues and thinking about what has already been used. The two most common small computer systems are Macintosh and Windows. Windows uses the name of a feature of the interface with which all users will be familiar but Macintosh has no obvious meaning or relevance. However, it shortens nicely to Mac and this has been widely used as a prefix (MacWatzit, MacDoodah) which has helped with the fanatisism associated with it (I speak as a Mac user). Then there was "Next", which I suppose was "forward-looking", but it did not last long. Then there have been some using "OS", notably IBMs OS2, which never caught on and BeOS, which has had a secure and enthusiastic "niche" usership but not been widespread. Then there has been Amiga and Atari - almost any Japanese or Chinese word tends to sound good to English speakers ears, whether it has appropriate meaning or not. There is Sun and Solaris which are fine, simple, positive sounding and a bit "obvious". Then there are all those UNIX things with names that are meaningless, difficult to say and not very inspiring - IRIX, xFree86, etc - and then Linux, mixing UNIX with that blokes name. Most of these names have no relevant meaning except for "Windows". Most of the obvious useable names have already been copyrighted, trademarked, used as domain names or are "associated" in some way with something. Whatever we decide on there will be a possibility of some plonker trying to make a legal issue of it. Finding something that simply has a ring to it might be best, even if it is "meaningless". ===== regards Rob __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Everything you'll ever need on one web page from News and Sport to Email and Music Charts http://uk.my.yahoo.com