Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I think I smell new hardware support in 10.4.10! Perhaps Santa Rosa based MBP's? Anyone???:D
 
All I know is that there are going be plenty of newbie support requests stating "I am running 10.4.1" and we're going to have to ask for clarification every time.

Still waiting for Apple to come up with a fix for the nasty 3-minute finder hang on a unexpected remote share disconnect...
 
It's Apple themselves that are eating crow; it's obvious they intended 10.4.9 to be the final update, otherwise they would not have had such an uncharaceristically long delay between 10.4.8 and 10.4.9 (it was like 6 months!).

That's the most ridiculous comment I've ever heard...
 
Just the thought of 10.4.10 made my Safari snappier!

lol snappy. My poor powerbook 12" rev a can't even muster snappy any more. It gets there, but in its own good time. Either that or I've been spoilt by playing with the MBPs in the Apple Store.

Glad that this should finally end the decimal/software revision number argument. It's .10, full-stop.
 
lol snappy. My poor powerbook 12" rev a can't even muster snappy any more. It gets there, but in its own good time. Either that or I've been spoilt by playing with the MBPs in the Apple Store

I hear you... my poor poor G4 iMac is staggering at 800MHz of slow-reaction-time power.

:(

-Clive
 
I hear you... my poor poor G4 iMac is staggering at 800MHz of slow-reaction-time power.

:(

-Clive

I can tell you those extra 67MHz don't make a lot of difference. First Santa Rosa MBP and I'm buying - was going to wait until leopard, but... well, you know...
 
wouldn't 10.4.9.1 or 10.4.9b make more sense? 10.4.10 = 10.4.1

oh well, they can call it whatever they want as long as it makes the OS better.
 
I think they need to call it 10.4.9 SE. It's what Microsoft would do :D

No, it would be 10.4.9 R2 according to Microsoft's current naming...

http://news.com.com/Microsoft+looks+beyond+Windows+Server+2008/2100-1012_3-6184247.html

"Microsoft said Wednesday that the follow-on to its Windows Server 2008 operating system will be an interim release due to arrive in 2009.

The software maker offered few details on Windows Server 2008 R2, other than to say the interim update will be offered only in a 64-bit version."​
 
I can tell you those extra 67MHz don't make a lot of difference. First Santa Rosa MBP and I'm buying - was going to wait until leopard, but... well, you know...

Yeah, I was thinking about wating for SR, but I think I'll wait for leopard too... save myself $130 in the long-run. Plus I don't have $2k to drop right now anyway... There's a *slightly* more expensive wedding coming up that I need to be worried about. In fact, I'm thrilled that Leopard will drop just after then... it'll be my wedding present to myself. Who needs a honeymoon?

-Clive

10.4.10 = 10.4.1

no...... it doesn't.

If it was a decimal, why would there be one between the 4 and the 9 in today's version, 10.4.9?

For the 6 millionth time, it's a placeholder, not a decimal.

Read the thread.

-Clive
 
dudes you are all missing the point of this. What was the reason leopard was delayed? lack of software engineers i seem to remember? well mebe if they stopped farting around making 10.4.999992313100920391857 then they would have enough software developers to actually release leopard?

Except that fixing a few minor bugs in 10.4.9 probably requires a thousandth the manpower of getting 10.5 stable enough to release.
 
You smarmy know-it-alls that *knew* Apple would never release a .10, and argued so vociferously, and at such great lenghth that it would never happen, probably all feel pretty dumb right now.

Those of us who have been dealing with comparing Mac version strings since System 6 (before that, maybe?) have always known the three version numbers moved independently. Not knowing this was a typical sophomoric mistake - in 1990!

I'm bummed though, in a way, because this means no new iMacs until WWDC probably, and I really need one. We'll probably see 10.4.10 released the afternoon after WWDC and I'm thinking of it as the Santa-Rosa Backport. Then I'm not bummed again because this means iMacs *will* be Santa-Rosa, since the MacBooks were already released. Killer!
 
Sound Fix?

The only complaint I had about my new Macbook Pro (yes, I'm a switcher) was the wimpy speakers.

One day I turned my titanium icon on, and was pushed back into my couch with a gloriously triumphant blare from the angels... or was it a YouTube clip.

Either way, those wimpy speakers ate some spinach and transformed themselves, as if puberty had hit in the overnight.

Now, a dreaded rumor threatens to spoil my Macbook Pro's adolescence, like a pimple before the prom. A speaker volume fix? Say it isn't so!

I fear going back to my previous life - a Mac in hand, and two battery powered tweeters hanging from my belt.

And I weep gently.
 
To be honest, the minute Leopard's release was pushed back, the fact there would be a 10.4.10 became as obvious as Britney Spears' lack of talent.

More like Gwenn Stefani, but i get your point :)

I think they need to call it 10.4.9 SE. It's what Microsoft would do :D

If it were like Microsoft it would be
Mac OS X Ultimate iPhone Edition SE for 2007 XP Professional
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.