I don't think that's necessarily applicable comparison, because a trailing zero after a decimal point adds nothing, but it does if it is before a decimal point. But even then, it never was meant to be treated as a simple number because it's not.
I don't think that's necessarily applicable comparison, because a trailing zero after a decimal point adds nothing, but it does if it is before a decimal point. But even then, it never was meant to be treated as a simple number because it's not.
True, but how should a trailing zero be treated after two decimals? I guess I just don't understand why people think there is?or should be?a single digit limitation.
While fighting on the naming scheme, this sentence passed almost unnoticed:
Quote:
Apple may also tap the impending Tiger update to lend software support to an upcoming series of Mac hardware updates that will include refreshed MacBook Pro notebooks and redesigned 20- and 24-inch iMac all-in-one desktop systems.
I think it is quite important and if true, then a redesigned iMac should be out before Leopard is released. Also it seems that the new form will be not applied to the 17" model.
For every person who sees 10.4.10 and thinks it's 10.4.1, there's one who'd look at 10.4.A and wonder if it predates 10.4.1. The general public doesn't understand software numbering and hasn't heard of hexadecimals.
Lets face it, the whole OS X numbering is seriously messed up. We're currently running "Mac oh ess ten ten point four point nine" There's no reason to repeat the ten.
If the product is MacOS then a version number 10.4.9 makes sense. If the product is MacOS X, then the version number should be 4.9.
While fighting on the naming scheme, this sentence passed almost unnoticed:
I think it is quite important and if true, then a redesigned iMac should be out before Leopard is released. Also it seems that the new form will be not applied to the 17" model.
My thoughts entirely. How come people get so caught up on meaningless semantics that they miss what's really being said?
Who gives a monkey's what it's called, it's what it does that matters! (Cue apoplexy amongst politicians)
If 10.4.10 (or whatever) includes new functionality for new hardware, presumably originally intended for Leopard, that's the big news. It suggests:
- there are significant new capabilities in Leopard, which will require new hardware, and
- we will not have to wait for Leopard for the new hardware
Of course, this is peanuts compared to what the naming convention should be...\
I just got back from Toronto last week. I had never been there before. What a great city! I didn't make it out of downtown, but I had an amazing time and liked everything I saw.
It also doesn't hurt that the women there are smokin'!!!
For every person who sees 10.4.10 and thinks it's 10.4.1, there's one who'd look at 10.4.A and wonder if it predates 10.4.1. The general public doesn't understand software numbering and hasn't heard of hexadecimals.
Lets face it, the whole OS X numbering is seriously messed up. We're currently running "Mac oh ess ten ten point four point nine tiger" [How could you forget the last part? -Sebastian] There's no reason to repeat the ten.
If the product is MacOS then a version number 10.4.9 makes sense. If the product is MacOS X, then the version number should be 4.9.
Yeah it is a bit screwy, I solved it for myself though. I just refer to OS X as "oh ess ten" and Mac OS X as "mac os x"
It's still better than Windows though, the OS on my HP is:
Microsoft Windows XP Media Center Edition Service Pack 2 Rollup 2
Comments
How about an X.X.X release?
There are plenty of those.
Apple always makes a point update to previous version shortly after a new major version is released.
I think you mean "shortly before".
Might as well make it purely hexadecimal and call it 10.4.A.
You beat me to it!
Yet no one mistakes 10.4 for 1.4
I don't think that's necessarily applicable comparison, because a trailing zero after a decimal point adds nothing, but it does if it is before a decimal point. But even then, it never was meant to be treated as a simple number because it's not.
I don't think that's necessarily applicable comparison, because a trailing zero after a decimal point adds nothing, but it does if it is before a decimal point. But even then, it never was meant to be treated as a simple number because it's not.
True, but how should a trailing zero be treated after two decimals? I guess I just don't understand why people think there is?or should be?a single digit limitation.
Might as well make it purely hexadecimal and call it 10.4.A.
Wouldn't that be A.4.A then?
Apple may also tap the impending Tiger update to lend software support to an upcoming series of Mac hardware updates that will include refreshed MacBook Pro notebooks and redesigned 20- and 24-inch iMac all-in-one desktop systems.
I think it is quite important and if true, then a redesigned iMac should be out before Leopard is released. Also it seems that the new form will be not applied to the 17" model.
Wouldn't that be A.4.A then?
Yep. Then the next update becomes X.T.X GTS
Lets face it, the whole OS X numbering is seriously messed up. We're currently running "Mac oh ess ten ten point four point nine" There's no reason to repeat the ten.
If the product is MacOS then a version number 10.4.9 makes sense. If the product is MacOS X, then the version number should be 4.9.
Wouldn't that make it sound like a Canadian CB radio operator?
Thank you - best laugh this week...
No magic numbering system, no hexadecimal system, just pure logic. End of story.
Thank you - best laugh this week...
A jokes are so passé here in Canada. As for the X.X.X comment, _that_ was brilliant! I almost ended up with ginger ale in my nose (seriously).
And what about the people who will confuse 10.4.10 with 2.4.2? With all this confusion, maybe Apple should just call it a service pack?
*ducks and covers*
How about an X.X.X release?
I guess it would be called OS XXX?
While fighting on the naming scheme, this sentence passed almost unnoticed:
I think it is quite important and if true, then a redesigned iMac should be out before Leopard is released. Also it seems that the new form will be not applied to the 17" model.
My thoughts entirely. How come people get so caught up on meaningless semantics that they miss what's really being said?
Who gives a monkey's what it's called, it's what it does that matters! (Cue apoplexy amongst politicians)
If 10.4.10 (or whatever) includes new functionality for new hardware, presumably originally intended for Leopard, that's the big news. It suggests:
- there are significant new capabilities in Leopard, which will require new hardware, and
- we will not have to wait for Leopard for the new hardware
Of course, this is peanuts compared to what the naming convention should be...
Wouldn't that make it sound like a Canadian CB radio operator?
That's definitely the best joke I've seen in these forums in a long time!
I just got back from Toronto last week. I had never been there before. What a great city! I didn't make it out of downtown, but I had an amazing time and liked everything I saw.
It also doesn't hurt that the women there are smokin'!!!
For every person who sees 10.4.10 and thinks it's 10.4.1, there's one who'd look at 10.4.A and wonder if it predates 10.4.1. The general public doesn't understand software numbering and hasn't heard of hexadecimals.
Lets face it, the whole OS X numbering is seriously messed up. We're currently running "Mac oh ess ten ten point four point nine tiger" [How could you forget the last part? -Sebastian] There's no reason to repeat the ten.
If the product is MacOS then a version number 10.4.9 makes sense. If the product is MacOS X, then the version number should be 4.9.
Yeah it is a bit screwy, I solved it for myself though. I just refer to OS X as "oh ess ten" and Mac OS X as "mac os x"
It's still better than Windows though, the OS on my HP is:
Microsoft Windows XP Media Center Edition Service Pack 2 Rollup 2
To make things worst, that's just an OEM version.
Sebastian