Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

10.6 Referenced in iPhone SDK Installer

HTML: 
function isgte106()
{
	// 10.6 or above
	if( system.compareVersions(my.target.systemVersion.ProductVersion, '10.6') >= 0 )
	{
		return true;
	}
			
	return false;
}
Click to expand...

I'm assuming that the function name "isgte106" in this code means "is greater than or equal to 10.6". If systemVersion.ProductVersion refers to the version of Mac OS X, then this function would presumably be useful because some feature was available only starting with that release. Why would the SDK installer code have a function to test for Mac OS X 10.6 or above? Is this function called anywhere?

I doubt it's a typo, since the 6 is in the function name and twice in the function body.
 
Small White Car said:
Not really a direct comparison, since the differene between 10.3 - 10.4 - 10.5 is more like the difference between OS 7 - OS 8 - OS 9.

In a sense, 10.5 is "really" OS 15.
Click to expand...
Exactly, and that's why I'm arguing they're in luhv with the X, to the point where they threw version numbering conventions out the window and labelled integer updates as point updates, just so they could linger on X as long as possible.

Sijmen said:
I don't really get why people are thinking it's OS X.5 (or .6). About My Mac clearly states "Mac OS X version 10.5.3".
Click to expand...
Yeah, that syntax is a tad inconsistent and confusing but trust me, it is X.5. Steve Jobs himself refers to it as "OS ten", so if you were to take the About My Mac statement literally it would be "OS ten ten", and should there god forbid one day be a 10.10.0 you would have "OS ten ten ten" on your hands. This would just kill anyone with a stutter, not to mention the store clerk at the receiving end...

Anyway, at least a dozen volunteers will give you a lecture about roman numerals if you refer to it as "OS Ex" in public (I know this from experience).
 
Small White Car said:
In a sense, 10.5 is "really" OS 15.
Click to expand...
History of the universe:
System 1
System 2
System 3
System 4
System 5
System 6
System 7 = Mac OS 7 (starting at 7.6)
Mac OS 8
Mac OS 9
Mac OS X 10.0 (Cheetah), could be considered "Mac OS 10"
Mac OS X 10.1 (Puma), could be considered "Mac OS 11"
Mac OS X 10.2 (Jaguar), could be considered "Mac OS 12"
Mac OS X 10.3 (Panther), could be considered "Mac OS 13"
Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger), could be considered "Mac OS 14"
Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard), could be considered "Mac OS 15"
Mac OS X 10.6 (your guess here), could be considered "Mac OS 16"​
 
wildcardd said:
I like the ring of Tabby. Or Munchkin :D
Click to expand...
Apple is pleased to introduce the next version of it's wildly popular operating system, OS X... "Whiskers."

You know, version numbering has nothing to do with what the thing gets branded as - I mean, all the apps in the CS Suite have version numbers corresponding to wherever they were at before Adobe bundled them all together. Apple could re-brand OS X however it wanted and the version number would still be 10.6, etc. Windows did this with ME, XP, and Vista, although the version numbers of each are 4, 5, and 6 hence "Windows 7" being in development.

I'm gonna place my money on whatever the market is doing, what kind of day Steve is having, the weather, and to a much less degree, whatever Apple's PR flacks have to say, as to what 10.6 gets called. Will it keep up with the "big cats" or be something completely different? Oh the tension, oh the drama, oh the suspense next time on "As The World Turns."

:rolleyes:
 
This reference to 10.6 in the latest iPhone dev kit is there because after the iPhone 2.0 is released there will be some developers working with alpha builds of 10.6.
;)
 
Decrepit said:
Since there are some features of it on the MBP and MBA, we know that Leopard itself can handle it.

I would guess that Apple isn't going to release an external pad that could be used on the Mini and Mac Pro since it could compete with the graphics tablet market.
Click to expand...

I actually think this is PRECISELY what Apple is planning. And we may even see it in the next few months (coming out of left field while everybody is jawing about the iPhone 2.0).

How old is the Mighty Mouse? Why hasn't Apple redesigned the sucker, even though it has got some serious flaws with its rollerball? Why would Apple introduce multitouch into just the laptop products... without providing an option for their desktop machines? Doing so would only limited the adoption of the new UI mechanisms by third party developers.

Apple is working on a touch screen mouse replacement is my guess. Likely something with a screen, that can reconfigure itself into different interface configs if an app so desires... This will be the gateway drug into multitouch OS's for people -- because drawing around on your screen all day quite simply isn't something that humans are ergonomically going to want to do, and millions of users aren't going to suddenly run out and replace their displays with touchscreens (despite what Microsoft may think).
 
RidleyGriff said:
I actually think this is PRECISELY what Apple is planning. And we may even see it in the next few months (coming out of left field while everybody is jawing about the iPhone 2.0).

How old is the Mighty Mouse? Why hasn't Apple redesigned the sucker, even though it has got some serious flaws with its rollerball? Why would Apple introduce multitouch into just the laptop products... without providing an option for their desktop machines? Doing so would only limited the adoption of the new UI mechanisms by third party developers.

Apple is working on a touch screen mouse replacement is my guess. Likely something with a screen, that can reconfigure itself into different interface configs if an app so desires... This will be the gateway drug into multitouch OS's for people -- because drawing around on your screen all day quite simply isn't something that humans are ergonomically going to want to do (despite what Microsoft may think).
Click to expand...

I think there was a patent revelation a while back about a mouse without buttons. You just told the surface of the mouse what was a button and what wasn't.

So you want one button? Do it.
Two? No problem.
Scroller? Up top.
What about a thumb button? Easy.

And then perhaps the area of the mouse covered by the palm could become the multitouch area.
 
Doctor Q said:
History of the universe:
System 1
System 2
System 3
System 4
System 5
System 6
System 7 = Mac OS 7 (starting at 7.6)
Mac OS 8
Mac OS 9
Mac OS X 10.0 (Cheetah), could be considered "Mac OS 10"
Mac OS X 10.1 (Puma), could be considered "Mac OS 11"
Mac OS X 10.2 (Jaguar), could be considered "Mac OS 12"
Mac OS X 10.3 (Panther), could be considered "Mac OS 13"
Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger), could be considered "Mac OS 14"
Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard), could be considered "Mac OS 15"
Mac OS X 10.6 (your guess here), could be considered "Mac OS 16"​
Click to expand...

Actually, the way I see it, you have System 1 - Mac OS 9 as "Macintosh Operating System". Then, it starts all over when the completely new and wholly rewritten Mac OS X came out, so essentially 10.1 would have been Mac OS X Version 2, and so on. 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, etc is more conventional in a sense, and also just sounds better and is easier to keep track of.

Really, what I'm saying is that everything prior to Mac OS X is completely separate from all releases of OS X, and thus the numbering system really isn't connected in any way.

jW
 
Doctor Q said:
Why would the SDK installer code have a function to test for Mac OS X 10.6 or above? Is this function called anywhere?

I doubt it's a typo, since the 6 is in the function name and twice in the function body.
Click to expand...

It would be for internal development and testing. Why it's in a public beta is another question.
 
Apple may want to get 10.6 out the door within a year of 10.5 as the last PPC release. Then they can focus all efforts on intel.

I get the impression they don't want to prolong PPC support for any longer than possible.
 
elppa said:
Apple may want to get 10.6 out the door within a year of 10.5 as the last PPC release. Then they can focus all efforts on intel.

I get the impression they don't want to prolong PPC support for any longer than possible.
Click to expand...

10.6 is the last PPC version? Or are you saying that 10.5 is, and they just want to move on? Just wondering. I hadn't read about the inevitable discontinuance of PPC support.

I'm hoping that a new Mini hits soon so I won't have to worry about it. 10.5 is awesome on my G4 Mini now that 10.5.3 hit, so I won't need to upgrade this one.
 
Monty1 said:
Why would they need to relate to 10.6 if the iphone sdk out now is not the final version? Based on this information 10.6 must come out sometime in the life of the sdk out now!
Click to expand...

We can guess two things:
(1) We can be pretty sure that work started on 10.6 just before 10.5 was released. Apple has to keep it's team of engineers working. Some of them I'm sure continue suporting 10.5 but most would be working on10.6 by now.

(2) That function we say was meant to be called. It is there because some software needs to know if the version is 10.6 or more. But why? Well given that Apple is working on 10.6 they know already that 10.6 has stuff in it that iPhones can use that is not available to 10.5 so an iPhon app needs a way to know to mac OS version, hence this function.

If these iPhone related features were easy to add to 10.5 I think Apple would have done that but it looks like 10.6 will have some level of re-design of some features to supor iPhones if not then why does this function exist.
 
rdrr said:
10.0 was Cheetah
10.1 was Puma
10.2 was Jaguar
10.3 was Panther
10.4 was Tiger
10.5 is Leopard

Lion, Lynx, and Cougar haven't been used... And I thought I read somewhere that Cougar and Lynx are already trademarked by Apple.
Click to expand...

I think that they have also trademarked Lion. I think that they should call one of them Sabre tooth. That just sounds bad-ass.
 
Decrepit said:
10.6 is the last PPC version? Or are you saying that 10.5 is, and they just want to move on? Just wondering. I hadn't read about the inevitable discontinuance of PPC support.
Click to expand...

No, nothing even approximating this has been rumored or reported. I think you may have misinterpreted a case of complete speculation by the poster you referenced. They completed the Intel switch way too recently to shut out all PPC users.
 
Decrepit said:
10.6 is the last PPC version? Or are you saying that 10.5 is, and they just want to move on? Just wondering. I hadn't read about the inevitable discontinuance of PPC support.

I'm hoping that a new Mini hits soon so I won't have to worry about it. 10.5 is awesome on my G4 Mini now that 10.5.3 hit, so I won't need to upgrade this one.
Click to expand...

If he's thinking the same as many people, he's saying the 10.6 would be the last PPC version. I personally hold the controversial view that PPC support will not be included in 10.6, but I'd be perfectly happy with being wrong. I just don't see it as that important to Apple, most people running G5's in anything critical are doing so because of older software anyways, which may or may not work in 10.6 regardless of PPC support in the OS itself.

jW
 
Maybe

Maybe the 10.6 piece of the code is right now to chek that you DON'T have 10.6... .ever think of that?
 
Decrepit said:
10.6 is the last PPC version? Or are you saying that 10.5 is, and they just want to move on? Just wondering. I hadn't read about the inevitable discontinuance of PPC support.

I'm hoping that a new Mini hits soon so I won't have to worry about it. 10.5 is awesome on my G4 Mini now that 10.5.3 hit, so I won't need to upgrade this one.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't shock me if it's nearing the end. Apple isn't normally sympathetic when it comes to discontinuation.

Even though people have dropped a couple of grand not too long ago on the G5 towers.

New versions of OS X could be smaller in size, faster, if they just focused on Intel.
 
10.6 already? Mind you, those of us who were OS X users from the start remember the short interludes between 10.0, 10.1 and 10.2. I'm wondering if, since they're clearly referencing 10.6 in existing code, it might: a) arrive on a similar timescale to the early 10.0-to-10.2 era – remember, the 10.4-.5 gap was unusually long; and b) contain something very cool – so cool that Apple are already building for its capabilities in their internal code trees right now.

As for post-X, I can't see Apple throwing out the OS X moniker. OS X is a platform, not a version. It would be akin to Microsoft no longer calling their operating system Windows. I see no issue at all in having Mac OS X, Version 11.0. When I'm asked what OS the Mac uses, I say OS X, not OS 10.5. In my mind at least, OS X and the actual version number are two distinct labels. The About This Mac dialog seems to support this.
 
Mal said:
If he's thinking the same as many people, he's saying the 10.6 would be the last PPC version. I personally hold the controversial view that PPC support will not be included in 10.6, but I'd be perfectly happy with being wrong. I just don't see it as that important to Apple, most people running G5's in anything critical are doing so because of older software anyways, which may or may not work in 10.6 regardless of PPC support in the OS itself.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's a controversial view, but more of a growing consensus... Apple were never big on legacy support -- I can still remember the puzzled faces of a colleague who was looking for the 9-pin serial port on his new blue Mac G3, a scene repeated a couple of years later when he was stumped as to where to plug in the dual CRT/VGA monitors that came with his new single-DVI G4... this connectivity was just dropped with no notification. I can picture his face again when he tries to install 10.6 on his G5.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back