I think they need to call it 10.4.9 SE. It's what Microsoft would do
GM would call it, 10.4.9 LTD (and give iTunes pinstripes)
Universal Studios would call it, 10.4.9 Reloaded, or 10.4.9 Director's Cut
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
GM would call it, 10.4.9 LTD (and give iTunes pinstripes)
Universal Studios would call it, 10.4.9 Reloaded, or 10.4.9 Director's Cut
I'm glad...I've never had any problems with the incremental updates...yet...but each one seems to fix something on my computer for the better.
That's good. I must admit, I've never had a problem on my Mac that needed one of these updates. But I stick 'em on anyway because I'm a Windows man at heart so it's just second nature
It doesn't confuse anyone in the real world. It only serves as a puzzling anchor for internet bitchfests.
People don't think of software versions as decimals, and more to the point, they don't really pay any attention to the version numbers at all, except when troubleshooting. And when you're looking up the version number, it's a simple copy and paste job. People honestly don't analyze it. I swear.
Apple has gone above .10 before (Quicktime 4.12, 7.0.3.50, etc.) and they'll do it again and absolutely no one outside of these forums cares.
I'm tired of the 10.4s. I'm willing to give 10.5.-1 a go! Who's with me?
That would be a bit too much like going back to the days of verbose version numbers.. remember MacOS 7.5.3 rev2?
Good News Indeed
the Finder on my Intel Core 2 Duo iMac has acted funky after 10.4.9 was installed, but I'm not sure if its 10.4.9 or that I installed VLC player. I suspect its one of the two.
the Finder on my Intel Core 2 Duo iMac has acted funky after 10.4.9 was installed, but I'm not sure if its 10.4.9 or that I installed VLC player. I suspect its one of the two.
Um, no. It's not a decimal, it's a delimeter. Take a look at Linux-kernel for example: Current version is 2.6.21. Or how about numbered chapters in books? Should the next chapter after chapter 2.9 be 3.0? No, it's 2.10.
Mac OS 10.4.10 would be 10th revision of the version 4 of Mac OS 10. Before it we had 9th revision. 10.4.9.1 Would be the first subversion of the 9th revision of version 4 of Mac OS 10. And so forth.
Next time anyone gets confused by the version-number, I'll be reaching for my gun.
Perhaps Apple should reconsider their naming scheme to help the confused. How does 10:4:10 sound? Or 10,4,10? Or 10/4/10?
Or they could just do 10.4 2007-06-0001 (or whatever month it comes out.)
10.4.9.1
10.4.10
10.4.9.SP1
Whatever, just fix my computer forgetting the F key functions (expose, hide all windows, etc) and forgetting all my mouse buttons!!
Oh and my sound
I love onions!!!
10.4.10
10.4.9.SP1
Whatever, just fix my computer forgetting the F key functions (expose, hide all windows, etc) and forgetting all my mouse buttons!!
Oh and my sound
I love onions!!!
Looks like a time value, in many languages/locales ',' are the decimal separator, looks like a date.
Looks like a time value, in many languages/locales ',' are the decimal separator, looks like a date.
10|4|10? 10 + 4 + 10? ( equals 24), 10 - 4 - 10 ( equals -4), 10*4*10 (400), 10 & 4 & 10... 10.4 #10? 10^4 + 10? 10.4 (10)? November 4, 2010?
Here's one that may work a bit better: 10 4 10. Just ten four ten.
Because it always does. Every. Single. Time.How in god's name has this discusison gone on for 7 freakin' pages?!?
Because it always does. Every. Single. Time.
Yep, you're right - no use fighting it I guess...
How in god's name has this discusison gone on for 7 freakin' pages?!?
People are having fun (god help us!). What else is there to talk about? Ultrathin portables? Oh. That was last week's thing...
Of course, the "having fun" part is great, hence why I added my $0.02 in as well (i.e. my "Sequel" comment
) - what concerns me are the people weho aren't having fun and are taking this debate rather seriously! 
I don't know, Clive, my friend. A friend asked me what the amount was, and that's not what I came up with.
...
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.
e^(i Pi) = -1 is actually derived simply from Euler's Formula: e^(i x) = cos x + i sin x (which, in turn, is derived from equating the series expansions of e^i x with i sin x and cos x). If you plug pi in for x, you get cos pi + i sin pi. cos pi = -1, i sin pi = 0 so in total, e^(i pi) = -1. It is commonly written as e^(i pi) + 1 = 0 and in this form is regarded as one of the most beautiful mathematical equations due to its relationship between so many extremely important math numbers: 0, 1, e, i, and pi.
For more on Euler's formula and where it comes from, visit this site.
A lot of time, people write off math as exclusively "Left brain" territory, but the more you get to know about math, the more of the bigger picture you actually get to see... and the more of that picture you see, the more you realize how beautiful math actually is... it's actually very aesthetically pleasing! Some of my favorite math phenomenons include the aforementioned Euler's Formula, Pascal's triangle (so so so many real-world coincidences) and quaternions (mentioned earlier in the thread). If you have a curiousity about math, you should look into these topics... start with Pascal's Triangle. It is scary how often it shows up in math...
Hope this cleared things up for you, jsalzer.
-Clive
autrefois
macrumors 65816
No, when 10.4.10 actually comes out, the same discussion will occur again.
And when 10.5.9 comes out, some people will say it's obvious that must be the last Leopard update since there can't be a 10.5.10!
And when 10.5.10 is seeded to developers (after another OS delay from Apple due to people being pulled off to get the new iRocket on the market on time), then the same issue will be brought up again.
The only difference is that after 10.4.10 is released, in the future people will actually be able to tell any doubters "There was a 10.4.10!!" and link to this thread, MacRumors Guides, or wikipedia instead of having to explain the whole thing. It should save a little time at least.
How on earth can a simple thing be so hard to understand? Version number is a special number which can be anything. OSX equals OS 10, so one can omit the ten-dot from the version nubmer and suddenly the version number makes more sense.
Current version is 10.4.9 which means OS 10 version 4 revision 9, and while we're at OS 10 and Tiger (version 4), we can have as many revisions as Apple wants to release. Current hardware can calculate up to 64 bits, so the max revision number can be a whole lot bigger than "9".
btw.
10-4-10 equals -4
But they don't necessarily have to store them as 64-bit integers. In addition, computers can actually calculate above 64-bit numbers, just not natively, so theoretically they can store much higher number of revisions.
Of course, that will never happen as I doubt they even have over one million builds of Mac OS X.
As for my example of how someone might get confused using a - sign as a delimiter, you're right! I messed up my math. I think I accidentally took the response from my 10 + 4 + 10 and added a negative... Ooops...
There's no way they'll come out with a 10.4.10. Have you ever heard of a 100 cent store?
I installed OSX 10.4.10 build 8R2205 this morning.So it's real..
Sue me Apple
I preferred it the way it was. Now I have to make incredibly
small adjustments using the slider, whereas before I could
use the volume keys.
If the Macbook Pros are too quiet, then perhaps there could
be a different range of volumes for them. Some kind of user
adjustable scaling might be in order, too.
Cheers.