No, because that would be a point release update of 10.4.9, not a point release update of 10.4 which is what it will be.
Come on folks, WoW is at 2.0.12, so it' can't be that hard to grasp...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac OS 10.4.10 Under Development
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, because that would be a point release update of 10.4.9, not a point release update of 10.4 which is what it will be.
Come on folks, WoW is at 2.0.12, so it' can't be that hard to grasp...
No **** right. I mean, its a extremly popular phone. Im supprised apple (since they how, are they are) dosent drop all support for every phone exept the iPhone. So you have to run out and buy it.
Honestly, I hope the iPhone flops, Hard. Maybe teach these guys a lesson that your computers and OS is way more important than some POS 700$ phone.
Sure through them in too... and let not stop there... let's add complex numbers, quaternions, octonions and sedonions... you can go further, but complex-based algebras beyond the octonions are basically irrelevant and lack important mathematical properties like unique quotents.
My favorite is quaternions, though... They're so pretty. 3-D imaginary numbers make a perfect compliment to 3-D quantum physics. I only wished we had used it when I was in school. Damn profs were so concerned with their traditional algebra and "bra - ket" notation.
Anyway, with quaternions, we'd get 10.4.(a + b i + c j + d k)
-Clive
Sure through them in too... and let not stop there... let's add complex numbers, quaternions, octonions and sedonions... you can go further, but complex-based algebras beyond the octonions are basically irrelevant and lack important mathematical properties like unique quotents.
My favorite is quaternions, though... They're so pretty. 3-D imaginary numbers make a perfect compliment to 3-D quantum physics. I only wished we had used it when I was in school. Damn profs were so concerned with their traditional algebra and "bra - ket" notation.
Anyway, with quaternions, we'd get 10.4.(a + b i + c j + d k)
-Clive
Not to get too far off topic but that reminded me of this....
Someone was a bit pissed off at Verizon for dicking him around about owing them something like 10 cents. Back to topic though. I thought you guys might enjoy.
PS- Sorry for the language....let me see if I can clean that up....
That is a WIN my good sir. *monocle*Not to get too far off topic but that reminded me of this....
Someone was a bit pissed off at Verizon for dicking him around about owing them something like 10 cents. Back to topic though. I thought you guys might enjoy.
PS- Sorry for the language....let me see if I can clean that up....
it's funny the fear around the .10 !
in fact it's :
10.4.10.8P3498 or something like that
10 -> OS type
4 -> Major revision
10 (second one) -> the minor revision or bug fix
last number is the build number that you can see in the about this mac when you click on the 10.4.9
Every major revision is a different project and every minor revision is a progression of the software. The build number is the internal revision of every compile-build of the code made by the software developper.
in fact it's :
10.4.10.8P3498 or something like that
10 -> OS type
4 -> Major revision
10 (second one) -> the minor revision or bug fix
last number is the build number that you can see in the about this mac when you click on the 10.4.9
Every major revision is a different project and every minor revision is a progression of the software. The build number is the internal revision of every compile-build of the code made by the software developper.
Not to get too far off topic but that reminded me of this....
Someone was a bit pissed off at Verizon for dicking him around about owing them something like 10 cents. Back to topic though. I thought you guys might enjoy.
PS- Sorry for the language....let me see if I can clean that up....
HAHAHAHA! That's the funniest damn thing I've ever seen!
...and apparently he owes them $0.002:
.002 = .002
e^(i * pi) = -1
Sum from 1 -> Infinity of 1/(2^n) = 1
Total = .002 + (-1) + 1 = $0.002
Who would charge someone for 2 tenths of a penny?!?!?!?!?!?!
-Clive
Why isn't LEOPARD just going to be called...
OS XI
Wouldn't that be easier?
???
But this one goes to 11
OS XI
Wouldn't that be easier?
???
But this one goes to 11
Assuming banks only goes to the tenth decimal place, would they round up or down?
I wonder if it is even legal to write a check that way....
Why isn't LEOPARD just going to be called...
OS XI
Wouldn't that be easier?
???
But this one goes to 11
Then Tiger wouldn't have been 10.4
OSX (even though Steve says O S Ten) is much nicer sounding and looking.
He said a few years back that OSX would last 20 years
My guess is that the next one will be unbelievably revolutionary
Then Tiger wouldn't have been 10.4
OSX (even though Steve says O S Ten) is much nicer sounding and looking.
He said a few years back that OSX would last 20 years
My guess is that the next one will be unbelievably revolutionary
But this one goes to eleven !!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHGGGGGRRRRRR!!!!
Attachments
There's no issue. Its just that some people are retarded.
10.4.9
10.4.10
10.4.11
10.4.12
What is so hard for people to get their heads around?
Did these people only learn to count to 9?
10.4.9
10.4.10
10.4.11
10.4.12
What is so hard for people to get their heads around?
Did these people only learn to count to 9?
Maybe Apple will change to 10.4-10 in place of 10.4.10 in order to resolve the issues in this thread.
Imaginary Money
I don't know, Clive, my friend. A friend asked me what the amount was, and that's not what I came up with.
We have:
0.002 + e^i + 23.14 + 1
(Breaking up e^(iPi))
This gave me 24.142 plus an imaginary amount. And since imaginary money doesn't go through banks, I figure the final answer was $24.14.
I guess my question is, how did you get that e^(iPi) = -1?
That would mean that e^i = -1/23.14. Where did that come from?
I'm confuzzled.
I don't know, Clive, my friend. A friend asked me what the amount was, and that's not what I came up with.
We have:
0.002 + e^i + 23.14 + 1
(Breaking up e^(iPi))
This gave me 24.142 plus an imaginary amount. And since imaginary money doesn't go through banks, I figure the final answer was $24.14.
I guess my question is, how did you get that e^(iPi) = -1?
That would mean that e^i = -1/23.14. Where did that come from?
I'm confuzzled.
Pot calls kettle black!
Hahahahahahahahaha!
I want to see a lot of people eating crow!
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.
Space
And you don't feel even a little dumb for acting like a four-year-old???
Hahahahahahahahaha!
I want to see a lot of people eating crow!
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.
Space
And you don't feel even a little dumb for acting like a four-year-old???
I never thought Apple would release 10.4.10... I thought they'd go with 10.4.9.1.. for the very reason this forum demonstrates:
The step between 10.4.9 and 10.4.10 confuses people, strangely.
This version issue is so tedious. I'm glad 10.4.10 will put this nonsense to an end.
The step between 10.4.9 and 10.4.10 confuses people, strangely.
This version issue is so tedious. I'm glad 10.4.10 will put this nonsense to an end.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
I want to see a lot of people eating crow!
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.
Space
And you don't feel even a little dumb for acting like a four-year-old???
And I honestly don't understand why this is! "10" follows "9"!!! It is no different than people being confused by version 3 following version 2 - what else would it be?! Some people are really trying to overcomplicate things here...
I think they need to call it 10.4.9 SE. It's what Microsoft would do
SP1
Nah, we would've called it SP9, or somesuch.
Just a little clarification...
Universal binaries run just fine on 10.2.8 - I just verified this now. The key words in the document you quoted are in bold: built with GCC 4.0. So C++ or Obj-C++ built with GCC 4.0 can't run on anything below 10.3.9, but that's exactly why Apple includes GCC 3.3 with the Tiger development tools - for backwards compatibility. Moreover, you can always compile the PPC version of a program on an older release of OS X (such as Panther, or even Jaguar) and combine it with a Tiger-compiled Intel version for your final Universal binary.
Remember, the concept of fat binaries (the old name for them, or multi-architecture binaries) has been around in NextStep since 1993, and separately, in the classic MacOS since 1994. So Mac OS X has understood them essentially since its inception. I don't know if 10.1 or 10.0 can run modern Universal binaries, but it would almost surprise me if they didn't. They should unless the format changed in 10.2. If the operating system encounters an architecture it doesn't understand in a fat binary, it should simply ignore that chunk of it.
...
More on topic, it's good that we'll finally put the silly version debate to rest.
Universal binaries run just fine on 10.2.8 - I just verified this now. The key words in the document you quoted are in bold: built with GCC 4.0. So C++ or Obj-C++ built with GCC 4.0 can't run on anything below 10.3.9, but that's exactly why Apple includes GCC 3.3 with the Tiger development tools - for backwards compatibility. Moreover, you can always compile the PPC version of a program on an older release of OS X (such as Panther, or even Jaguar) and combine it with a Tiger-compiled Intel version for your final Universal binary.
Remember, the concept of fat binaries (the old name for them, or multi-architecture binaries) has been around in NextStep since 1993, and separately, in the classic MacOS since 1994. So Mac OS X has understood them essentially since its inception. I don't know if 10.1 or 10.0 can run modern Universal binaries, but it would almost surprise me if they didn't. They should unless the format changed in 10.2. If the operating system encounters an architecture it doesn't understand in a fat binary, it should simply ignore that chunk of it.
...
More on topic, it's good that we'll finally put the silly version debate to rest.