Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
57,363
20,193


ThinkSecret notes that Apple has seeded Mac OS X 10.4.6 to developers one week following the official release of Mac OS X 10.4.5.

The update currently delivers about 50 documented improvements, including several OpenGL-related fixes, improvements to CoreImage and CoreGraphics, and other bug corrections for iSync, AppleScript, and other components. Known issues with the update include certain AppleScripts not running correctly and Safari hanging in some situations

The update comes in both PowerPC and Intel flavors.
 

yankeefan24

macrumors 65816
Dec 24, 2005
1,104
0
NYC
at this rate they will run out of 10.4.x's to keep adding them. WE WILL HAVE 10.5 EARLY!!! THE ONE MORE THING AT WWDC WILL BE, "Oh I FORGOT TO MENTION THAT IT IS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC." seriously, i doubt that but it would be cool.
 

TMA

macrumors 6502a
Jan 6, 2003
933
1
England
Crikey, another update already on its way!

I'm guessing that 10.4.5 and 10.4.6 are more important for intel/rosetta issues.
 

dansgil

macrumors regular
Aug 17, 2005
206
0
Vancouver, BC
Well, if they run out of numbers for updates, they could always do 10.4.9.1, 10.4.9.2, etc.

I really want to see 10.5 though. :)
 

commonpeople

macrumors regular
Nov 9, 2004
198
0
yankeefan24 said:
at this rate they will run out of 10.4.x's to keep adding them. WE WILL HAVE 10.5 EARLY!!! THE ONE MORE THING AT WWDC WILL BE, "Oh I FORGOT TO MENTION THAT IT IS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC." seriously, i doubt that but it would be cool.

Can I explain for the 10000th time that the incremented version of 10.4.9 is 10.4.10, which goes to 10.4.11 etc. Those dots are not decimal points- they can't be since there are two of them in one number.
 

TMA

macrumors 6502a
Jan 6, 2003
933
1
England
commonpeople said:
Can I explain for the 10000th time that the incremented version of 10.4.9 is 10.4.10, which goes to 10.4.11 etc. Those dots are not decimal points- they can't be since there are two of them in one number.

Yes it could do, but Apple have never followed that convention before so why should they now?
 

bankshot

macrumors 65816
Jan 23, 2003
1,309
155
Southern California
TMA said:
Yes it could do, but Apple have never followed that convention before so why should they now?

Umm, because they've also never not followed it?

It's mere coincidence that past OS versions never went higher than a .9 revision, and that fact proves nothing either way about what the convention really is. I guarantee that Apple didn't reach 10.3.9 and suddenly decide not to release any more updates to Panther because they ran out of revision numbers. It just happened to be that there were no new major changes required for Panther before Tiger came out.

I'd bet a week's pay that the 10th revision of the OS, should Apple ever get up that high, would be a .10 revision. Makes much more sense that way! I wouldn't be surprised to see that in Tiger since the development cycle for Leopard was supposed to slow down anyway. More time = more potential updates in between.

Can we please put this "issue" to bed? :rolleyes:

(of course, I know it'll never die because nobody pays attention to me anyway... :p)
 

Chundles

macrumors G5
Jul 4, 2005
12,037
493
130MB.

That's much better. That 6.4MB 10.4.5 update was hardly an update. Apple should have just listed it "6.4MB of stuff you should download" rather than an official OS X update.

Graphics driver = good news for me, maybe I'll be able to output to a TV again? Oh I hope so, 10.4.2 lost that ability for me and it hasn't been back since.
 

Stridder44

macrumors 68040
Mar 24, 2003
3,971
171
California
Oh please for the love of cheese and rice do NOT start up that " can't go past 10.x.9/will have to go 10.x.9.10 yadda yadda" debate/argument/crap again!!!

MOVING ON...

Yes I image since they release updates for both PPC and Intel versions at the same time, there are alot of Intel-side bug fixes (or at least this is what seems to be the pattern so far...)
 

ifjake

macrumors 6502a
Jan 19, 2004
562
1
actually i'm kinda glad. the 6 megabyte 10.4.5 update for my powerbook somehow manages to lock up my computer every now and then. it's gotten better somehow, but it's still a pain. it's just made me slightly concerned at how well Apple will really continue to support non-intel machines. this thing is only 8 months old.
 

plinkoman

macrumors 65816
Jul 2, 2003
1,144
0
New York
i for one am glad to see all these updates. it shows that apple actually gives a damn about the quality of their os, unlike certain other companies. i'm just glad 10.4.5 finally fixed the sound loop/echo problem on the newest powerbooks, that was really starting to bug me. hey, maybe 10.4.6 will allow my superdrive to burn all 8x dvd's and not just tdk and verbatims :rolleyes:
 

p0intblank

macrumors 68030
Sep 20, 2005
2,548
2
New Jersey
Either this early release was already planned or Apple is speeding it up because it will have a fix for the recent Terminal vulnerabilities.
 

LimeiBook86

macrumors 604
May 4, 2002
7,997
21
Go Vegan
Good! I've noticed Safari hanging a LOT on my Intel iMac and on my PowerBook G4 since the last update, hopefully this will fix things.

Wow it seems like Apple's running out of updates....10.5 here we come...yeah I know it's a long ways off but, :p

:D
 

Rocksaurus

macrumors 6502a
Sep 14, 2003
652
0
California
Is it just me or does anyone else want Apple to slow down with updates? Certainly I love new OSes but I hate having to upgrade to be assured that I'm able to use the latest software all the time. Plus if you recall Tiger was fairly rushed. Needed a decent amount of work after they released it. I for one would really like Apple to take some extra time to add even more cool features and enhancements to give us more bang for the buck as well as a completely polished product. Maybe it's just me though.
 

JQW

macrumors member
Feb 23, 2006
91
0
bankshot said:
Umm, because they've also never not followed it?

I'd bet a week's pay that the 10th revision of the OS, should Apple ever get up that high, would be a .10 revision. Makes much more sense that way! I wouldn't be surprised to see that in Tiger since the development cycle for Leopard was supposed to slow down anyway. More time = more potential updates in between.

Can we please put this "issue" to bed? :rolleyes:

(of course, I know it'll never die because nobody pays attention to me anyway... :p)

I presume that there is an API call for returning the version number. Is that restricted in any way?

I used to work with another long dead OS that used a 16-bit integer to store the current version number, and used the decimal of that as the actual version number, hence version 4.00.10 would be represented by the value 40010. The final pair of digits only went up to 49 on production releases, due to extra handling for beta version numbers, and the major version number was restricted to 6.

Is there a similar restriction on Mac OS version numbers? I don't have a copy of XCode to hand to check the versioning API calls.
 

bwintx

macrumors 6502
Jul 17, 2002
361
302
commonpeople said:
Can I explain for the 10000th time that the incremented version of 10.4.9 is 10.4.10, which goes to 10.4.11 etc. Those dots are not decimal points- they can't be since there are two of them in one number.

Those who don't get that explanation should just start thinking of them with "understood zeroes": e.g., the current version is 10.04.05. When you look at it that way, you see that there's a lot of revisions theoretically possible.
 

robbieduncan

Moderator emeritus
Jul 24, 2002
25,611
892
Harrogate
Chundles said:
130MB.

That's much better. That 6.4MB 10.4.5 update was hardly an update. Apple should have just listed it "6.4MB of stuff you should download" rather than an official OS X update.

Is 130Mb not for the combo updater (i.e. it contains all the changes from 10.4.0). The delta updater should be a lot smaller than that.
 

Thomas Harte

macrumors 6502
Nov 30, 2005
399
4
I presume that there is an API call for returning the version number. Is that restricted in any way?
There are several! Following this prehistoric Cocoa Dev Central article.

The method carried over from the Classic OS in Carbon is a gestalt call. That returns the version number in four digit hexadecimal (i.e. a 16bit int), 0xabcd where the OS version is taken to be ab.c.d. Since OS X 10.4.5 (for example) returns 0x1045 and not 0x0a45 the question of whether the .d digit could be in the region a to f isn't particularly clear - especially as documentation of this method seems not to be present with XCode 2.2.

From the BSD layer, sysctl can be used to get the kernel version number but it is returned as an ASCII string so no conclusions can be taken from that. The commandline tool sw_vers -productVersion used commonly by shell scripts similarly returns a string so could return more or less anything.

I can't seem to find anything much on a Core Foundation path to getting the system version, but I've never found XCode's help system to be particularly good for searching.
 

thejadedmonkey

macrumors G3
May 28, 2005
8,883
2,430
Pennsylvania
Chundles said:
That 6.4MB 10.4.5 update was hardly an update. Apple should have just listed it "6.4MB of stuff you should download" rather than an official OS X update.

http://loop.worldofapple.com/ is reporting that the only reason that apple released 10.4.5 was because maxxus released a patch for 10.4.4 or something.
loop.worldofapple.com said:
Speculation has begun on whether the majority of the bug fixes were going to be included with 10.4.5, released just last week but recent issues with the Intel iMac and hacking attempts forced Apple to release it early, for this reason sources expect the development time of 10.4.6 to be relatively short.
 

LeviSnuts

macrumors newbie
Oct 21, 2005
27
0
excellent, my safari has been freezing up for about a minute or so every couple of days... i'm excited to see this fixed
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.