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

Another Day, Another Panther Build (7B59)

Originally posted by mvc
They'd better hurry up with Panther or they are going to run out of digits for Jaguar. Currently 10.2.8, next 10.2.9? then what?? 10.2.9.1??? :p
Click to expand...

10.2.10, of course. There's nothing unusual about that. SGI releases a new "dot" release of their operating system every quarter. They started with version 6.5, and now they're up to 6.5.21.

Of course, we'll almost certainly see 10.3 before 10.2.9, but you never know.
 
Originally posted by Jeff Harrell
10.2.10, of course. There's nothing unusual about that. SGI releases a new "dot" release of their operating system every quarter. They started with version 6.5, and now they're up to 6.5.21.

Of course, we'll almost certainly see 10.3 before 10.2.9, but you never know.
Click to expand...

Of course it is possible to create a 10.2.x numbers after 10.2.9. But the point was that it would be confusing. I mean, from a math perspective, there is no difference between 10.2.1 and 10.2.10. Just another insignificant digit.

Anyway, I say just screw 10.2.8 and all the other 10.2.x release, just give me Panther! I know it's not that easy, but I want it now! :)
 
We need this update...any update

I'm checking software update daily for an OS update, I don't care if it's 10.2.7 or .8 or .9. The point (no pun intended) is that whoever let 10.2.6 go public should be shot. I upgraded my new iBook 900 combo to 10.2.6 and have had nothing but problems since. Sleep, power, stability, speed...Everything we love about our favorite Apple Os, is running like crap. Having read other boards, there are quite a few people who have had problems similar to mine with 10.2.6. I downgraded to 10.2.4 which has helped some of the problems, but I'm still terribly frustrated. Having been an apple user since OS 6.x, I was thrilled with the initial stability of OS X, I was waiting for the speed which came with Jaguar. The next upgrade need to repair my confidence in X. Thanks for allowing my rant.
 
Originally posted by Freg3000
Of course it is possible to create a 10.2.x numbers after 10.2.9. But the point was that it would be confusing. I mean, from a math perspective, there is no difference between 10.2.1 and 10.2.10. Just another insignificant digit.

Anyway, I say just screw 10.2.8 and all the other 10.2.x release, just give me Panther! I know it's not that easy, but I want it now! :)
Click to expand...

From a math perspective I am not familiar with numbers containing two decimal points.

:confused:
 
Originally posted by Freg3000
Of course it is possible to create a 10.2.x numbers after 10.2.9. But the point was that it would be confusing. I mean, from a math perspective, there is no difference between 10.2.1 and 10.2.10. Just another insignificant digit.

Anyway, I say just screw 10.2.8 and all the other 10.2.x release, just give me Panther! I know it's not that easy, but I want it now! :)
Click to expand...

Actually, from a math perspective the zero in the number 10.2.10 IS significant. It is right of the decimal and right of a number. Don't we all love significant digits!!
 
Originally posted by DGFan
From a math perspective I am not familiar with numbers containing two decimal points.

:confused:
Click to expand...

HAHA True! Kind of makes my previous post moot!:eek:
 
Originally posted by Rocketman
OS development is a continuous process. The OS is actually Apple's primary product, the fact they give it away with every computer notwithstanding.

The change to entirely new chips, busses, memory, even general architecture is a major challenge for the OS writers. Given the sheer numbers of "standards" and plugs and cards Apple has supported over even the last 3-5 years, much less 20 it is actualy somewhat shocking.

At this point what they need is for the OS to be as bulletproof as they have been claiming for about 3 years now. All the changes they have been doing to the kernal and filesyatem risks ruining that claim. I just hope they are paying special attention to basic function reliability and accuracy first and adding bells and whistles last.

Top 5 priorities for Apple:
Windows iTunes
Deliver ALL G5 orders
Settle on a rock solid OS build for G5's
In-house clustering software and hardware
A portable appliance that phones, musics, records, pictures, and internets.
And bills to my CC iTunes downloads, ringer tone downloads,
internet service, and optional .mac access.

6. A 15" G5 0.65um dual 3.0 Ghz PowerBook :)

Rocketman
Click to expand...

Filesystem issues have always existed. Every service pack on Windows has an NTFS bug fix, what DOES need to be ensured is that the filesystem contains no bugs that could cause filesystem corruption. If it were ME I would conduct an beginning to end filesystem audit.

Regarding the 'tinkering" with the kernel, they NEED to be done so that more applications can be ported EASIER without the need to try and code around issues. poll() for example is one feature that has been added so that certain UNIX programs can be ported to MacOS X.

What I would like to see is an international iTunes and for iTunes to have a virtual "bank" so that one could put money into it rather than a CC being processed heaps of times.
 
Uhmmm..

Since no one pointed out...

Safari tweaks, does this mean Safari 1.1 is going to be released with 10.2.8?

That would be.. SWEEEET!!
 
Re: We need this update...any update

Originally posted by coachingguy
I'm checking software update daily for an OS update, I don't care if it's 10.2.7 or .8 or .9. The point (no pun intended) is that whoever let 10.2.6 go public should be shot. I upgraded my new iBook 900 combo to 10.2.6 and have had nothing but problems since. Sleep, power, stability, speed...Everything we love about our favorite Apple Os, is running like crap. Having read other boards, there are quite a few people who have had problems similar to mine with 10.2.6. I downgraded to 10.2.4 which has helped some of the problems, but I'm still terribly frustrated. Having been an apple user since OS 6.x, I was thrilled with the initial stability of OS X, I was waiting for the speed which came with Jaguar. The next upgrade need to repair my confidence in X. Thanks for allowing my rant.
Click to expand...
I think 10.2.7 G5 was needed quickly, with all the fuss about the latest PowerMac delays. Apple had to rush a recompiled version of the OS for the G5, hence the name 10.2.7. Can you imagine, Apple being unable to ship the G5s because of the lack of OS? Now I think we are all gonna be bumped up to 10.2.8 soon (G5s, G4s and G3s) to repair those annoying bugs, and then Panther will come along for those willing to shell the dosh.
 
Apple's always made "one last release" that would run on hardware no longer supported by upcoming OS revisions.
68040 machines got 8.1
Pre-G3 PPC machines got 9.1
(OS 9 holdouts got 9.2.2)
OldWorld G3 users get 10.2.8

...also there are other reasons people would want to stick with an older major version for consistency's sake.
I help run a high school where we are just starting to deploy OS X to the masses. There's a bunch of little issues (Safari sucks when printing to HP LaserJets, etc) that we'd love to have fixed, but our Users would freak out with a major OS change so soon.
We can have all our computers upgrade themselves to 10.2.8 overnight when its released. The masses won't notice (other than fewer inconveniences), and we'll have less weird issues/bugs to deal with.
 
Anybody find it weird that Macs are using 3 generations of processors (G3, G4 & now G5)? I hope Motorola can get its groove on so that iBooks can be upgraded to G4 while the PowerBooks get upgraded to G5s so that Apple can get rid of all the G3 specific code and have all computers have Altivec. It would be cool if all Macs came w/ G5s, but then there'd be little difference between the iBook & PowerBook. As far as 10.2.7, as said before, I heard on MacOSRumors that Apple changed the name from 10.2.7 to 10.2.8 That's probably so people w/ G5s won't get confused. Just remember, "A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet." And after 10.2.9, it probably will be 10.2.10 I am also unaware of numbers w/ 2 decimal points, but 10.2.1 would not necsessarily be equal to 10.2.10 since when rounding, 10.2.1 could stand for 10.2.05 to 10.2.14999999… while 10.2.10 qould stand for 10.2.1049999999… or something. Math & significant figures are weird.
 
What about Classic?

I've been waiting for some word about how Classic will be supported in Panther. I'd expect some changes from Jaguar, or at least I'm hoping for some. What do we hear?
 
Re: What about Classic?

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I've been waiting for some word about how Classic will be supported in Panther. I'd expect some changes from Jaguar, or at least I'm hoping for some. What do we hear?
Click to expand...

I recall hearing some time ago that the Classic apps would run and look like Aqua apps. However, nothing has been said lately. I also recall hearing some time ago that X11 apps would run and look like Aqua apps, and we've heard nothing from anyone about that either.

Maybe all the beta testers have been sworn to secrecy, or they just don't test things like that, because all that matters to them is whether Safari has brushed metal or not (sheesh).
 
I think 10.2.8 would "wrap up" all issues before 10.3 --- In other words, if 10.3 didn't work for you (for whatever reason, maybe an older machine), 10.2.8 would the the last full revision before 10.3.

Actually, from a math perspective the zero in the number 10.2.10 IS significant. It is right of the decimal and right of a number. Don't we all love significant digits!!
Click to expand...

Actually, the trailing zero is not not significant. But trying to apply standard significant figure rules to revision numbers is almost as pointless as discussing powerbook release rumors for eight months.
 
Perhaps there is two versions of 10.2.7, on for the G5 and one for G4, G3. To release this would be confusing. Perhaps 10.2.8 merges the two together.

All these are details ! The good thing is that OS X is getting better!
 
Re: Re: What about Classic?

Originally posted by cubist
I recall hearing some time ago that the Classic apps would run and look like Aqua apps. However, nothing has been said lately. I also recall hearing some time ago that X11 apps would run and look like Aqua apps, and we've heard nothing from anyone about that either.

Maybe all the beta testers have been sworn to secrecy, or they just don't test things like that, because all that matters to them is whether Safari has brushed metal or not (sheesh).
Click to expand...


i just started classic and launched 'SimpleText' (Ahhh, memories. . . ) to see if this was true. Result: no. they look the same as they always did. i can't tell you anything about performance because i never used it that much anyway. but classic launches really fast on my 17-inch powerbook, even without turning off extensions; a couple seconds, and it is done. sweet.



peace
 
the news blurb talks about FS issues, is that in the seed notes? If so, any details? Does that mean they're working on fixing the FS refresh issues that have plagued OSX for 4 revisions now?
 
Originally posted by rotorblade
Considering many people will not be able to use Panther with their current computer(s)...
Click to expand...

well, i was playing around with Panther 7B49 and i put it on an old G4/400 as well as an Indigo iBook 366... runs great on either machine... in fact, the crazy thing is that the iBook boots up to the desktop about 20-30 seconds faster than a gig-15inch-Powerbook G4 running 10.2.6.
I know that's just booting up and not running tons of apps, but it's still kind of cool.
 
Originally posted by jbirk5000
well, i was playing around with Panther 7B49 and i put it on an old G4/400 as well as an Indigo iBook 366... runs great on either machine... in fact, the crazy thing is that the iBook boots up to the desktop about 20-30 seconds faster than a gig-15inch-Powerbook G4 running 10.2.6.
I know that's just booting up and not running tons of apps, but it's still kind of cool.
Click to expand...

WOW! I wonder how it'll run on my G3 400 iMac? :confused: :p

(and I just added a gig of RAM!)
[edited for more info]
 
Originally posted by coumerelli
WOW! I wonder how it'll run on my G3 400 iMac?
Click to expand...

I've got 7B53 running on a 400 MHz iMac with 640 MB of RAM, and it runs very well. Better than Jaguar did.
 
Well, 10.2.8 will certainly be the shortest-lived update of Apple history... but hopefully Panther really is right around the corner, and not three months or more away, as this 10.2.8 update seems to hint at (updates are almost ALWAYS 3 months apart @ Apple... makes me worried...)

Aside from that, they've messed up the numbering order now! Every OS update has had a sequentially increasing number of minor updates. The 10.0 series ended with 10.0.4, 10.1 ended with 10.1.5, and Jaguar was SUPPOSED to end with 10.2.6! Now they're two versions off... :p

(I predict Panther will now end at 10.3.9, which sounds REALLY weird, lol)
 
Originally posted by jbirk5000
well, i was playing around with Panther 7B49 and i put it on an old G4/400 as well as an Indigo iBook 366... runs great on either machine... in fact, the crazy thing is that the iBook boots up to the desktop about 20-30 seconds faster than a gig-15inch-Powerbook G4 running 10.2.6.
I know that's just booting up and not running tons of apps, but it's still kind of cool.
Click to expand...

My 800-MHz LCD iMac (768 MB) boots up faster in Panther than my friend's Dual GHz (512 MB) in Jaguar, and the overall system seems quite a bit snappier than his.

Panther rocks, no matter what system you put it on :)
 
how is "boot up" defined?

Originally posted by Bluefusion
boots up faster in Panther than ... in Jaguar
Click to expand...

How is this measured?

Just to warn people that simple "subjective" impressions are important, but can be misleading.

For example, Windows XP "boots up" much faster than Windows 2000, when "boot up" is defined as "how long before the login window appears".

When you login, however, you find that "booting up" hasn't really completed, the disk is still clicking and things are finishing up in the background. The system can be a little slow until it all completes, and the system is really "booted".

All in all, the improvement is WinXP is significant -- but some of it is sleight of hand.... It's faster than Win2K - but not by as much as it would seem just by timing the login windows.
 
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