Apple sprouts new seed of Mac OS X 10.4.9

Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
You may have missed it with all the news coming out of last week's Macworld Expo, but Apple, Inc. recently distributed a new pre-released build of Mac OS X 10.4.9 to its developer community.



The latest is just the second build of the Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger operating system update to make its way outside the company's walls since build 8P2111 was released to developers in late December.



According to people familiar with the new seeding, the build is labeled Mac OS X 10.4.9 build 8P2117 and weighs in at 176.2 MB and 82 MB for Intel- and PowerPC-based Macs, respectively.



Since build 8P2111, which included numerous fixes for wireless and sync technologies, Apple has reportedly shifted the focus of Mac OS X 10.4.9 to some lower-level technology improvements.



With the latest seed, Apple has reportedly asked that developers focus their testing efforts on Activity Monitor, bash, bind, iCal, OpenSSH, Rosetta and sudo, in addition to those system components listed in the December seeding.



Those familiar with the new seed say it includes nearly two dozen bug fixes over build 8P2111, the majority of which focus on underlying system technologies such as CoreData, CUPS, CFNetwork, Kerberos, Open SSH, SMB File Server, IOkit kernel, Unix commands and WebCore.



Some of the more notable fixes target issues that may arise in Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger when, connecting a system to display while in Sleep mode, the .m4v file extension is not recognized, synching data to Address Book with Sync Services, and printing with SMB home directory from Rosetta applications.



Mac OS X 10.4.9 will also reportedly address glitches that have turned up within file systems when users copy read-only files.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 22
    ksecksec Posts: 1,567member
    Still no sign on leopard ><
  • Reply 2 of 22
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ksec View Post


    Still no sign on leopard ><



    I don't remember Apple making any comment on Leopard's release date other than first half of 2007. That means it could be anywhere from tomorrow to as much as 5 1/2 months from today.
  • Reply 3 of 22
    aplnubaplnub Posts: 2,591member
    I think the title would read much better if you used "squirts" instead of "sprouts."
  • Reply 4 of 22
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post




    According to people familiar with the new seeding, the build is labeled Mac OS X 10.4.9 build 8P2117 and weighs in at 176.2 MB and 82 MB for Intel- and PowerPC-based Macs, respectively.



    does anyone else hate that the new intel stuff is so huge????? (in comparison)



    glad I still got my G5.
  • Reply 5 of 22
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nufase View Post


    does anyone else hate that the new intel stuff is so huge????? (in comparison)



    glad I still got my G5.



    It is probably huge because of enhancements to Rosetta. Once Rosetta is frozen or eliminated, the update size should become smaller. However, with Leopard being quad binary (64-bit PPC, 64-bit Intel, 32-bit PPC, 32-bit Intel), Leopard and its updates may be even bigger.
  • Reply 6 of 22
    ksecksec Posts: 1,567member
    Where did you get the Quad binary from?
  • Reply 7 of 22
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ksec View Post


    Where did you get the Quad binary from?



    I believe I read it somewhere online.
  • Reply 8 of 22
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    10.4.8 (and the Mac Pro's specific build of 10.4.7) already has at least one quad binary, actually. This will become increasingly common in 10.5.
  • Reply 9 of 22
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,892member
    I like this: "JUST the second build...since late December to make it's way outside..."



    Give these guys a break.
  • Reply 10 of 22
    irelandireland Posts: 17,669member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    I don't remember Apple making any comment on Leopard's release date other than first half of 2007. That means it could be anywhere from tomorrow to as much as 5 1/2 months from today.



    They never said that, they said Spring. i.e. most probably mid to end of April.
  • Reply 11 of 22
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,892member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post


    They never said that, they said Spring. i.e. most probably mid to end of April.



    Right, Spring it is.



    Unless they change their minds.



    But Apple would never do that.
  • Reply 12 of 22
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I like this: "JUST the second build...since late December to make it's way outside..."



    Give these guys a break.



    They can't push new releases out too fast, after all. They are running out of version numbers to cater for new hardware that may launch between now and 10.5 (if they stick with their current convention for numbering).



    If a largely bug-fix 10.4.9 appears, could that be a sign that leopard is due before any major new hardware?



    Put that in the rumour mill and crank.
  • Reply 13 of 22
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 31,892member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by philipm View Post


    They can't push new releases out too fast, after all. They are running out of version numbers to cater for new hardware that may launch between now and 10.5 (if they stick with their current convention for numbering).



    If a largely bug-fix 10.4.9 appears, could that be a sign that leopard is due before any major new hardware?



    Put that in the rumour mill and crank.



    I don't think that anything done for 10.4 necessarily means something for 10.5.



    The two lines are pretty much separate.



    They WILL add required features to an older OS version if it's required for something new Apple has come out with. But, only after the newer vwesion is out.
  • Reply 14 of 22
    areseearesee Posts: 776member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by philipm View Post


    They can't push new releases out too fast, after all. They are running out of version numbers to cater for new hardware that may launch between now and 10.5 (if they stick with their current convention for numbering).



    Apple needs to put out a 10.4.10 just to put this nonsense to bed once and for all.
  • Reply 15 of 22
    ivkivk Posts: 46member
    I hope they fix the bugs that've been announced and exploited via month of kernel bugs, month of apple bugs & month of browser bugs.
  • Reply 16 of 22
    ksecksec Posts: 1,567member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by aresee View Post


    Apple needs to put out a 10.4.10 just to put this nonsense to bed once and for all.



    Personally i would like apple to follow the numerical number system. (i.e . as in decimal ) rather then follow the industry version numbering scheme.



    Becoz it just cause too much confusion to customers. And to people who know nothing about computers.
  • Reply 17 of 22
    I hope they reverse the "deaf MacBook" problem that the 10.4.8 update caused. See:



    http://discussions.apple.com/thread....sageID=3905957
  • Reply 18 of 22
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ksec View Post


    Personally i would like apple to follow the numerical number system. (i.e . as in decimal ) rather then follow the industry version numbering scheme.



    Becoz it just cause too much confusion to customers. And to people who know nothing about computers.



    O RLY? Then I suppose 10.4.8 should be 10.48?



    It's not very confusing...Apple has given names to its OS revisions. A lot of "people who know nothing about computers" often refer to 10.4 as Tiger. They ask me "Are you using...what's it called...Tiger?" And I nod. And they understand that I'm using the latest. And then I say "Leopard is coming out soon" and they say, "Oh yeah, with Time Machine? I saw that on Apple's site."



    Nobody 'cept you and a few other people care how the numbering scheme works. Software Update opens by default once a week and I would gather most people simply click "Install" without giving much heed to the numbers. People certainly wouldn't be going "Holy shit, 10.4.10? BUT THAT'S *BEFORE* 10.4.2 and I'M ON 10.4.9!!!!"



    Why? Because everyone with 1st grade math skills can recognize the numbering scheme isn't based on the decimal system...because there's only room for one dot in the decimal system.



    My apologies if you're in kindergarten though.
  • Reply 19 of 22
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,949member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ksec View Post


    Personally i would like apple to follow the numerical number system. (i.e . as in decimal ) rather then follow the industry version numbering scheme.



    Becoz it just cause too much confusion to customers. And to people who know nothing about computers.



    The industry standard is a succession like this:



    Software 1.0, Software 1.5, Software 2.0, Software 5.0, Software 2001, Software XL, Software XLGT, Software XLGT Platinum Edition, Software XLGT Platinum Edition Pro. At least Apple holds to a relatively consistent numbering system, the one they seem to have been using for over a decade if not two or more decades.
  • Reply 20 of 22
    eckingecking Posts: 1,588member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    The industry standard is a succession like this:



    Software 1.0, Software 1.5, Software 2.0, Software 5.0, Software 2001, Software XL, Software XLGT, Software XLGT Platinum Edition, Software XLGT Platinum Edition Pro.



    Too true!
Sign In or Register to comment.