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

Mac OS X 10.4.9 8P125/8P2125 Seeded

guzhogi said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, though (in a nice way, please).
Click to expand...

Youre pretty much right. As far as I'm concerned a version number is just there to distinguish it from the previous version and has no logical bearing on future versions.

That said, its easy to see why people think its the last version before 10.5. Just decimalised thinking because thats what we're used to.

Meh, it'll ship when its ready.
 
Didn't 10.4.8 come out in October? It's definitely time for an update if you look at the pattern since the early days of OS X.

I'm betting this is the last one, not because of the lame dot 10 argument, but because June is now only about 4 months away. Sometime between there and now, Leopard will come out. The update patterns have really slowed down. (Security updates not included).

Just doesn't seem there is that much to fix before Leopard from an OS side.
 
Chundles said:
Possibly but I doubt it.

The next Intel product in the upgrade path is the T7700 processor (2.4GHz version of the current Core 2 Duo processor shipping in most Macs) that will have to tide us over for the late arrival of the new Santa Rosa platform which will bring the Crestline (Intel call it "Centrino Pro") chipset which combined will give some very handy features. It will keep the current version of the Core 2 Duo processor until the 45nm Penryn versions arrive later this year.

We're in a bit of a lull from Intel as they get their next kit ready for manufacturing.

Doesn't mean that we won't see new products based on existing tech but I just don't see it happening as yet - the Penryn versions of the Core 2 Duo processor have some really cool features re: heat and power consumption that make use in a small portable Mac really worth the wait.

So no, I think we'll be seeing some big software announcements in the first half of this year with Leopard and iLife/iWork/Pro Apps updates and the second half of the year will be more hardware stuff with new Macs, the iPhone and new iPods. Hardware releases closer to the US Back to School and the Christmas buying seasons really help Apple's bottom line as all the shiny new stuff gets free shopping hype from the media.
Click to expand...

The T7700 is a P socket you wont see it until Crestline comes out. So, there is nothing to tide us over to Santa Rosa. Well except for what we have which is still pretty nice.
 
guzhogi said:
It would've been easier if Apple did Mac OS X 10.04.01 to shut these people up, but it's ugly w/ all those 0s. Correct me if I'm wrong, though (in a nice way, please).
Click to expand...

You're wrong, but in a nice way. :) Those just aren't decimal numbers. Nobody else does it that way. Aside from a few clueless weirdos, I don't think anybody is confused. What's after ten four nine? Ten four ten. Simple. Those dots are separators...like phone numbers. I don't think people have problems with 1.800.867.5309 either, right? Nobody thinks that "should" be the same as 1.8.867.5309, right? Why is this even an issue?

--Eric
 
Oh dear god. Can't we have a 10.4.10 amnesty please? Everyone just hand in their comments about it and we'll never speak of it again.
 
MacsAttack said:
Like Apple TV and/or the new Airport basestation actually shipping??
Click to expand...
Actually, I was thinking about a Mac Pro update, which would need a later build. According to the Apple site, the Apple TV requires only 10.3.9, and the new Airport requires 10.4.8.
 
guzhogi said:
It would've been easier if Apple did Mac OS X 10.04.01 to shut these people up, but it's ugly w/ all those 0s. Correct me if I'm wrong, though (in a nice way, please).
Click to expand...

However, there could theoretically be a 10.4.153 so you could never have enough zeros for place holders.

10.000004.0000234 sounds even less appealing than 10.04.01, and still doesn't leave enough placeholders for the infinite possibilities.

:)


Eraserhead said:
Back on topic: consumers don't check the version number they are downloading, they just get it from software update...
Click to expand...

Sure they do. Many peripherals and software require you to check your os version number (i.e. a mouse that only works with 10.3.9 or later etc.). People do need to be aware of it.
 
slb said:
The fact that Apple always stops releasing updates when they hit .9? It's been this way for six years, folks.
Click to expand...

No, they only stopped at .9 once, with Panther. Other versions stopped at other version numbers.

Especially given the fact Apple tends to do a final update just before or after the release of a major version a 10.4.10 is very likely.
 
nitynate said:
"Actually, I do not think apple will release a 10.4.10 as that would be too confusing"
:p
Click to expand...

Don't worry, they won't.

Apple is a creature of habit. It's made them very predictable in some aspects. Sure, you can't easily predict which product they'll release next, and what it's specific modifications will be. But, in general strategy, and behavior you can predict their every move.

1) Apple will always try it's best to keep upcoming products secret.

2) Apple will hype each new release to make it sound like their old one is no longer useful and that you should upgrade right now. Of course, they have a unique way of saying it that doesn't come across so blatant as to offend or upset. But, the end result is people dumping their 2 month old computer to buy the latest one. Works every time.

3) Software updates (Mac OS, iLife, iWorks, and so on), will only go to the 3rd decimal before the second decimal is bumped-up. As far back as the Apple II, Apple has kept this formula. With their dedication to consistent behavior, they'll likely continue this behavior indefinitely.

So, OS 10.4.9 will be the last major release of OS 10.4.x. That does not mean that there will not be future updates to OS 10.4.9. It just means that Apple will not change it's revision number beyond 10.4.9. I'm sure they'll continue to release updates for OS 10.4.x, but it will not change the revision number any. Perhaps the build number, but not the revision number.

I've been regularly downloading updates for my machine with OS 10.2.8 on it. And, it's still OS 10.2.8 even after being discontinued as long as it has been. But, I've found that every few months, they still issue some update for it. With all the updates they've released over the years, if they extended beyond the 3rd decimal, then it would be 10.2.9905 or something by now.

Apple's a creature of habit. 10.4.9 will be the final revision number for OS 10.4.x. Other updates and security patches will likely only change the build number.

Does this mean Leopard's coming out this week, probably not. But, it will be out within a few months or so if history is any indicator.
 
slb said:
The fact that Apple always stops releasing updates when they hit .9? It's been this way for six years, folks.
Click to expand...

It has been? As far as I remember, they stopped at 10.0.4, 10.1.5, 10.2.8, and 10.3.9 for Mac OS X. Four of those releases didn't have .9 in them.

It's ridiculous that people are going over this again and again, ad naseum.

I hope that Apple releases 10.4.100 just to finish this silly argument.
 
Eraserhead said:
Back on topic: consumers don't check the version number they are downloading, they just get it from software update...
Click to expand...

Well, that is true for some of them.

But, from the last couple of years that I've spent helping people on the Apple Discussions support site, I can tell you that it isn't true for all. It just depends on the individual.

Some get their updates through Software Update. Others download them from the website.

Myself, I download them and save them to disk. That way I can download them one time, and install the updates on multiple machines without downloading them each time. It also make re-installs much faster if I don't have to re-download everything.

I'd say that the method of downloading probably falls somewhere in the middle. Half or nearly half go one way, and the rest the other.
 
freiheit said:
I really wish Apple would just use the Conroe proessor for the iMac instead of the Merom, then we wouldn't have to wait for DDR2-800 and greater than 3GB RAM support. That 3gig (lopsided) limit is what's keeping me from buying an iMac right now.
Click to expand...
AFAIK, it's the mobile chipset (used in Macbooks, the iMac and the Mac Mini), not Merom, that's the problem. Until Santa Rosa, the total addressable memory is 4 GB, including VRAM and caches. So the maximum usable RAM is 3 GB. But, unlike some other manufacturers, Apple is honest about this limitation.

Of course, the Mac Pro is not subject to this limitation, because it does not use the mobile chipset.
 
I hope that apple either releases 10.3.10, or says 10.x.10 will never happen, just to shut everyone up...

I personally am against those who say "10.4.9 is just a version number, they could bring out 10.4.10, 11 etc"....

So far this has not been the case. Maybe apple's plan is to always make 10.x.9 the final dot release, with only minor security and compatibility updates later...Then again, maybe not...
 
Mas OS Leopard

I do think the launch of Mac OS X Leopard is near because Apple wants
and has a great oportunity to shake the Windows World!!!​


And now with a poor Vista launch is the perfect time to do so. Because if people need to upgrade computer to run Windows maybe it will be a lot better to upgrade to a Mac!

And We Mac users know that it's a lot easier for PC users switch to Mac OS X because with the new Macs they will run Windows if they want too!

So Great Oportunity to make a Huge Announcement in the historical big event as Super Event as the Super Ball!!!

Go Apple!!!!!! ;) ​



http://carlosgonzalez.planetaclix.pt/
 
Is it common for this updates to bring support for new devices in iSync?

I am tempted to buy the Samsung D900. But the bad support of iSync with the D900 is stopping me.

Roco, :)
 
MacinDoc said:
AFAIK, it's the mobile chipset (used in Macbooks, the iMac and the Mac Mini), not Merom, that's the problem. Until Santa Rosa, the total addressable memory is 4 GB, including VRAM and caches. So the maximum usable RAM is 3 GB. But, unlike some other manufacturers, Apple is honest about this limitation.

Of course, the Mac Pro is not subject to this limitation, because it does not use the mobile chipset.
Click to expand...

It also doesn't use Merom processors. Xeon processors are the least likely to be compromised of anything that Intel make.
 
I want to be able to say in my lifetime that I actually had a 10.4.10 update on my computer-for all the doubting Thomasinas...
Ill also probably wait untill 10.5.1 to get Leopard-like I did with Tiger-and get a machine packet instead of a (stripped down) retail version.
 
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