Yea, it is some crazy thing you're making up because the connections are completely different between the new and old conventions, and have nothing to do with the back-end heavy, generational update only being a mere "point update," not to mention your inexplicable ignorant on the cat names being used.
So what you're telling me is that the fact that the names for 10.6, 10.8, and 10.11 are obviously references to the previous names is just a random coincidence? And when the presenters specifically pointed the connections out, and when Serlet made the claim of "0 new features" for Snow Leopard in the 2008 State of the Union, they were just speaking in tongues. Okay.
You're trying to marginalized Apple's efforts with OS X. This is no different than people like you saying the 'S'-series iPhones aren't worthwhile HW updates despite the major revisions to the internals.
Let's make a little bet. If you can find anywhere where I said that 10.6, 10.8, or 10.11 weren't worthwhile updates, you win the bet. If you can't within 24 hours, I win the bet. Loser buys the winner a brand new top-of-the-line retina MBP with all the build-to-order options maxed out. Deal?
Far from being not "worthwhile", the minor updates are usually the best ones. They work and perform better than the "features" releases, and are the most stable. Snow Leopard is still probably the most solid OS Apple's ever released. They're just not as major of a release as the "features" ones. Just like the "S" releases of the iPhone, which regardless of whether you consider them "worthwhile", are not as big, and don't change as many user-facing things, as the new-number updates. That's just an objective fact which has nothing to do with whether you should get the product or not.
So what you're telling me is that the fact that the names for 10.6, 10.8, and 10.11 are obviously references to the previous names is just a random coincidence?
Ugh! One last fucking time. You made a claim that the codenamed held some deep meaning. I then noted that several of the code names used (e.g.: mountain lion, puma, and panther) are all the same cat. I then noted that even though they are the exact same cat under a different name the OSes are very, very different.
And when the presenters specifically pointed the connections out, and when Serlet made the claim of "0 new features" for Snow Leopard in the 2008 State of the Union, they were just speaking in tongues. Okay
YES! There was more than "0" features in Snow Leopard! They presented many of the major ones in the fucking demo!
Let's make a little bet. If you can find anywhere where I said that 10.6, 10.8, or 10.11 weren't worthwhile updates, you win the bet.
You said they weren't the next generation of Mac OS X, despite having the generational code name and numeral, having been marketed by Apple, and having been demoed at two different events. You attributed them to point updates for bugs fixes and minor refinements, despite their laundry list of new features, most of which are on the back-end and therefore are not as easily marketed, but something needed when you have a mature OS.
If you can't within 24 hours, I win the bet. Loser buys the winner a brand new top-of-the-line retina MBP with all the build-to-order options maxed out. Deal?
How about you show me proof that were zero features in Snow Leopard, which is both something you have now claimed and used Serlet's comment as your proof despite the existence of Snow Leopard and major under the hood changes being well known. I guess that means that GCD and OpenCL are not something you add as a minor point update. Oh, wait, they couldn't have been added at all since you said there were no new features in Snow Leopard¡
Far from being not "worthwhile", the minor updates are usually the best ones. They work and perform better than the "features" releases, and are the most stable. Snow Leopard is still probably the most solid OS Apple's ever released. They're just not as major of a release as the "features" ones. Just like the "S" releases of the iPhone, which regardless of whether you consider them "worthwhile", are not as big, and don't change as many user-facing things, as the new-number updates. That's just an objective fact which has nothing to do with whether you should get the product or not.
If these back-end updates are "minor updates", despite their own marketing codename, new secondary number sequence, special event demonstrations, and NEW features then what do you call the tertiary updates that come over the next year with bug fixes, refinements, stability features, no major architecture changes, no major kernel changes, no major changes from 32 to 64-bit code? Those are the fucking minor updates!
I'm not sure if you're just being a concern troll with your "those minor updates like service packs are the best ones" or if you're knowledge of SW is so superficial that you can't see how major back-end changes can be complex despite not having many flashy bells and whistles in which to help market to the plebs. Even though you don't want to see under the veneer these updates are significant and no one at Apple would say that these updates to their low-end code base is nothing but a minor update.
Ugh! One last fucking time. You made a claim that the codenamed held some deep meaning. I then noted that several of the code names used (e.g.: mountain lion, puma, and panther) are all the same cat. I then noted that even though they are the exact same cat under a different name the OSes are very, very different.
Not some deep meaning — in fact, a rather simple and obvious meaning, one which Apple themselves have stated multiple times, and which is not controversial.
You said they weren't the next generation of Mac OS X, despite having the generational code name and numeral, having been marketed by Apple, and having been demoed at two different events. You attributed them to point updates for bugs fixes and minor refinements, despite their laundry list of new features, most of which are on the back-end and therefore are not as easily marketed, but something needed when you have a mature OS.
I said that they belong to the same generation as their predecessors. That is not the same as saying they are not "worthwhile." The back-end refinements are much appreciated by pretty much everyone, I'd think. Having entire releases that consist primarily of back-end improvements and not new features, however, is a relatively recent development. Prior to Snow Leopard, every release of Mac OS X was announced with some huge "X New Features!" announcement.
How about you show me proof that were zero features in Snow Leopard, which is both something you have now claimed and used Serlet's comment as your proof despite the existence of Snow Leopard and major under the hood changes being well known.
The price of a maxed-out MBP is $3199. How should we arrange payment?
If these back-end updates are "minor updates", despite their own marketing codename, new secondary number sequence, special event demonstrations, and NEW features then what do you call the tertiary updates that come over the next year with bug fixes, refinements, stability features, no major architecture changes, no major kernel changes, no major changes from 32 to 64-bit code? Those are the fucking minor updates!
Those are the bugfix updates.
Traditional software version numbers have three parts: X.Y.Z, where X is the major version, Y is the minor version, and Z is the bugfix version. Since OS X has become a brand in and of itself, X is fixed to 10 here, so the Y number has been used to indicate both major and minor versions. (In the Classic Mac OS days, Snow Leopard et al. would probably have been given x.5 version numbers.)
In my software, I've regularly released .1 and .5 updates that involved rewriting huge swaths of code under the hood. That's what you do. Apple's done that, too, and going way back. Look at 7.6 and 8.1, both of which contained huge backend improvements relative to their precessors (8.1 included an entire new file system, for crying out loud). "Major" version updates are usually reserved for new features.
PS: I'm not sure if you're just being a concern troll with your "those minor updates like service packs are the best ones" or if you're knowledge of SW is so superficial that you can't see how major back-end changes can be complex despite not having many flashy bells and whistles in which to help market to the plebs?
TBH, I'm beginning to suspect you're drunk. Why don't you put the computer down for a while, calm down, and sleep on it and see if you're still this angry tomorrow.
Not some deep meaning — in fact, a rather simple and obvious meaning, one which Apple themselves have stated multiple times, and which is not controversial.
So you're still holding your original comment as an unwavering truth even thought it also mean that you're also claiming that mountain lion, puma, and panther are exactly the same by your own willful ignorance of that truth?
I said that they belong to the same generation as their predecessors. That is not the same as saying they are not "worthwhile." The back-end refinements are much appreciated by pretty much everyone, I'd think. Having entire releases that consist primarily of back-end improvements and not new features, however, is a relatively recent development. Prior to Snow Leopard, every release of Mac OS X was announced with some huge "X New Features!" announcement.
Again, for the last time, Apple clearly wanted them to be a different generation because they gave them a new name, a new number that was one above the previous generation (like all their other generational changes), then demoed and marketed them for the world to see.
[stupid image]
The price of a maxed-out MBP is $3199. How should we arrange payment?
Those are the bug fix updates.
TBH, I'm beginning to suspect you're drunk. Why don't you put the computer down for a while, calm down, and sleep on it and see if you're still this angry tomorrow.
So OpenCL, GCD, and the innumerable other back-end features added to Snow Leopard are, again, just "bug fix updates". What a reasonable thing to say¡ :rolleyes:
I'm hoping at some point you realize that his comment was a reference to flashy forward-facing features, and that even then it was false, but this is going on the 6th(?) time I've made that clear and you're still claiming there were "0" new features added to Snow Leopard despite repeated proof that features were indeed added tells me the rudimentary logic of "GCD was at least one new feature added to SL so either I misinterpreted Serlet's comment or he wasn't being actual factual" is beyond your comprehension.
So you're still holding your original comment as an unwavering truth even thought it also mean that you're also claiming that mountain lion, puma, and panther are exactly the same by your own willful ignorance of that truth?
You're drunk. Go home.
Again, for the last time, Apple clearly wanted them to be a different generation because they gave them a new name, a new number that was one above the previous generation (like all their other generational changes), then demoed and marketed them for the world to see.
And then went onstage and publicly tied them firmly to the previous releases.
So OpenCL, GCD, and the innumerable other back-end features added to Snow Leopard are, again, just "bug fix updates". What a reasonable thing to say¡ :rolleyes:
Please tell me where I said Snow Leopard was a "bug fix update."
I'm hoping at some point you realize that his comment was a reference to flashy forward-facing features, and that even then it was false, but this is going on the 6th(?) time I've made that clear and you're still claiming there were "0" new features added to Snow Leopard despite repeated proof that features were indeed added tells me the rudimentary logic of "GCD was at least one new feature added to SL so either I misinterpreted Serlet's comment or he wasn't being actual factual" is beyond your comprehension.
Please tell me where I claimed that there were 0 new features (as opposed to stating that Serlet claimed it, which he did, and which I proved with the screencap).
Personally attacking me after you dug your own grave isn't going to help your lost argument. Pathetic.
And then went onstage and publicly tied them firmly to the previous releases.
Booting into 64-bit, GCD, OpenCL, and countless other features are new to SL. IOW, they weren't available in Leopard, were they? Nope! New… Features.
Please tell me where I said Snow Leopard was a "bug fix update."
Minor versions are the tertiary versions. Those are the bug fixes. Stop being so obtuse.
Please tell me where I claimed that there were 0 new features (as opposed to stating that Serlet claimed it, which he did, and which I proved with the screencap).
You claimed it and then used Serlet's comment focusing on UI features as proof that he meant it for the entirety of the OS, even though it's been proven now 7(?) times that there were new features in SL that were MAJOR changes to the code base even if you still need flashy new icons to make a determination of what is major or minor for OS X from the inside out.
I'm so sick of people trying to discredit Apple at every turn.
"Apple can't run without Steve Jobs" "Tim Cook only cares about homo stuff." "The iPad is a market failure." "The S-series iPhones are just Apple wanting more money for the same thing." "El Cap is so Apple can fix stuff it didn't want to fix with Yosemite."
I'm not sure if you're just being a concern troll with your "those minor updates like service packs are the best ones" or if you're knowledge of SW is so superficial
Personally attacking me after you dug your own grave isn't going to help your lost argument. Pathetic.
Not to mention all the times you've accused me of saying things I didn't say. Calm. Down.
Booting into 64-bit, GCD, OpenCL, and countless other features are new to SL. IOW, they weren't available in Leopard, were they? Nope! New… Features.
So were C blocks and reference NSURLs. So what?
Minor versions are the tertiary versions. Those are the bug fixes. Stop being so obtuse.
Well, let's see. What does -[NSProcessInfo operatingSystemVersion] call them? majorVersion, minorVersion, patchVersion. What did the old Gestalt() API call them? gestaltSystemVersionMajor, gestaltSystemVersionMinor, gestaltSystemVersionBugFix.
Clearly minor is the secondary version, and bugfix (or patch) is the tertiary.
You claimed it and then used Serlet's comment focusing on UI features as proof that he meant it for the entirety of the OS, even though it's been proven now 7(?) times that there were new features in SL that were MAJOR changes to the code base even if you still need flashy new icons to make a determination of what is major or minor for OS X from the inside out.
Let's make a bet. $3199 (on top of the $3199 you already owe me) if you can find a quote of mine where I said, myself, that SL had zero new features, rather than saying that Serlet said that and that it was part of the narrative.
I'm so sick of these asshats trying to discredit Apple at every turn.
Dude, I've got Mac stuff going back to 1986. I've been a Mac fan probably before you were born. Do you even know what my username comes from? I haven't said one thing in this whole thread that was "discrediting" Apple, not that they're thin-skinned enough that it would matter to anyone but you.
"Apple can't run without Steve Jobs"
Didn't say it.
"Tim Cook only cares about homo stuff."
Certainly didn't say that.
"The iPad is a market failure."
Didn't say that either.
"The S-series iPhones are just Apple wanting more money for the same thing."
Nope, didn't say it.
"El Cap is so Apple can fix stuff it didn't want to fix with Yosemite."
Nor that.
**** these people!
"Personally attacking me after you dug your own grave isn't going to help your lost argument. Pathetic."
Sometimes I want to read a thread, hoping it would give me an interesting discussion to read/participate, but all I see is 3 posts and 37 non viewable posts as they are on my block list.
And now he's onto saying how long he's owned Macs. Classic move.
I asked him to prove there were zero no features, to which he posted an image from the keynote saying ""0" New features" which he immediately follows up with some ridiculous statement of me giving him $3199, and NOW he's writing, "Let's make a bet. $3199 (on top of the $3199 you already owe me) if you can find a quote of mine where I said, myself, that SL had zero new features, rather than saying that Serlet said that and that it was part of the narrative," without seemingly realizing that his photo and sentences as a response to my query are in fact an absolute statement that he did suggest that there are no features in Snow Leopard, which he's now saying he never suggested. Is this guy off his rocker or just being a douche?
Oh, for Christ's sake. I'm done trying to talk to you.
BTW, I know you've been systematically lying and misquoting me the whole thread, but I wasn't really upset until that "homo stuff" one. That was a new low, even for you.
Holy moly, nitpicking about version numbering schemes. I see Solipsism is still here. I remember him back from the days when the Mac OS X Hints forum was still alive and well. I haven't been regularly posting on Apple-related sites in a while, but I guess I'll fan the flames of this argument and put my own two-cents in. I think Solipsism has misinterpreted and is horribly overreacting to comments made by Durandal1707. Not everyone that makes a vaguely negative-sounding comment is trying to "discredit Apple" or otherwise disparage them.
The term "next generation" can be highly subjective at times. It frequently depends on context to put things into perspective. Sometimes the term is reserved for extremely large improvements and/or changes in a system, but many times it's used for any kind of new version of a product.
The Mac Pro (Late 2013) has a radically different design compared to previous models, like the ones from 2012 and 2010. Apple says it has "next-generation PCIe-based flash storage" and "new-generation Xeon processors". You could say this is the "next generation" of Mac Pro.
The 2013 MacBook Air featured Intel's Haswell CPUs. The 2014 models had slightly faster Haswell CPUs. Is this "next generation"?
The iPod touch line is now in it's 6th generation. It's very similar in appearance to the 5th generation, but has faster processor along with some other minor improvements. It literally is the "next generation" of iPod touch, but hasn't changed much visually.
I'm typing on a 15" MacBook Pro (Mid 2010). In 2011, they upgraded it to use Intel's "next generation" Sandy Bridge CPUs and AMD GPUs. Was this significant enough to make this the "next generation" of MacBook Pro...? Or would this phrase only be reserved for events like the switch to Unibody enclosures?
I could go on with a bunch of other stupid examples and you can go and nitpick all of them to death. I agree with Durandal1707 that Apple's naming schemes generally indicates when a version is a significant refinement of the previous version.
These kinds of things are done for software development purposes. After a certain point in the software development cycle, there is typically a "code freeze" where developers do not add additional features to the software and only focus on making sure the features that are already implemented are bug-free. There can also be code "branches" where Apple continues to develop new features for future versions in one branch while keeping the main branch that is about to be released to consumers "frozen". For example, Apple may have been working on transit directions for their Maps app for a long time, but they obviously did not add the incomplete and buggy code to iOS 7 or 8, they waited until it was of a decent quality before introducing it into iOS 9.
Durandal1707 is not saying that Snow Leopard is a worthless upgrade to Leopard, or that the iPhone 5S is a worthless upgrade from the iPhone 5. He's saying there is an emerging pattern with OS X where there are some versions that introduce more new user-facing features, and other versions that introduce more significant backend enhancements and overall refinements. This is the result of a fairly constant software development life cycle, which includes the "freezes" and "branches" as mentioned earlier. Obviously all versions have a mix of both kinds of features, but there is a pattern starting to form around these features and Apple's naming scheme. I don't think anybody but the most dense troll would believe Snow Leopard had "zero features". Apple was clearly using that slide as a hyperbole for the fact that the majority of features were not user-facing but actually low-level system improvements. They then used these improvements to make more user-facing features in later versions.
This is similar to the "tick-tock" strategy Intel uses when designing CPUs. One "tick" indicates a new smaller hardware manufacturing process, and one "tock" indicates a new microarchitecture design.
The next time somebody says something vaguely negative about Apple, don't automatically assume they are trolling and being anti-Apple. Unless maybe they're using obvious troll terms like "sheeple" or "crapple" or some nonsense like that.
Holy moly, nitpicking about version numbering schemes. I see Solipsism is still here. I remember him back from the days when the Mac OS X Hints forum was still alive and well. I haven't been regularly posting on Apple-related sites in a while, but I guess I'll fan the flames of this argument and put my own two-cents in. I think Solipsism has misinterpreted and is horribly overreacting to comments made by Durandal1707. Not everyone that makes a vaguely negative-sounding comment is trying to "discredit Apple" or otherwise disparage them.
The next time somebody says something vaguely negative about Apple, don't automatically assume they are trolling and being anti-Apple. Unless maybe they're using obvious troll terms like "sheeple" or "crapple" or some nonsense like that.
Unfortunately this has become common practice here at AI. The usual suspects (all of whom have been added to my blocklist) freak out at comments that aren't 100% worshipful of Apple and its executives. The sickness seems to be spreading.
Not everyone that makes a vaguely negative-sounding comment is trying to "discredit Apple" or otherwise disparage them.[
No, not everyone, but there is a pattern.
The term "next generation" can be highly subjective at times. It frequently depends on context to put things into perspective. Sometimes the term is reserved for extremely large improvements and/or changes in a system, but many times it's used for any kind of new version of a product.
It is highly subjective, and Apple makes that determination. They have chosen a tick-tock method on a mature OS that focuses on user-forward features one generation and then back-end features the next generation. One may not like that a complete focus on making their code-base 64-bit, added GCD or OpenCL as being included in their generational nomenclature, but Apple does give it a sequential number increase and promotes it as such, so we shouldn't argue that based on the evidence of "well the UI looks the same to me so it's not a new version of the OS." And this isn't just Apple, this is every company. If MS wants to call their feature dump a service pack, then that is their choice. We have no way of measuring exactly how much effort goes into each new build based on what we can see with our eyes so it's foolish to claim otherwise, and, yes, i'm annoyed by anyone that claims to be more intelligent than a company with 100 thousand + employees.
Durandal1707 is not saying that Snow Leopard is a worthless upgrade to Leopard
Ge clearly said it was not the next generation of OS X despite the sequential numbering by Apple and he even used a screenshot to prove there were no new features despite already being given proof there were plenty of new features added to SL.
This is similar to the "tick-tock" strategy Intel uses when designing CPUs. One "tick" indicates a new smaller hardware manufacturing process, and one "tock" indicates a new microarchitecture design.
Which one of those is the minor update? Answer: Neither of them. They are split because each have their distinct hurdles. The main difference is that each are discreet issues, where as with OS X each of these generational updates are all done in code and will have overlap. There is no generational release where the back end or front end was entirely ignored, it was just the focus of their efforts.
And when released will be buggy. They'll probably have replaced Photos with something else......it'll get to a .4 or .5 update and by then they'll have moved on to OS X 10.12 <stupid name>.
Comments
So what you're telling me is that the fact that the names for 10.6, 10.8, and 10.11 are obviously references to the previous names is just a random coincidence? And when the presenters specifically pointed the connections out, and when Serlet made the claim of "0 new features" for Snow Leopard in the 2008 State of the Union, they were just speaking in tongues. Okay.
Let's make a little bet. If you can find anywhere where I said that 10.6, 10.8, or 10.11 weren't worthwhile updates, you win the bet. If you can't within 24 hours, I win the bet. Loser buys the winner a brand new top-of-the-line retina MBP with all the build-to-order options maxed out. Deal?
Far from being not "worthwhile", the minor updates are usually the best ones. They work and perform better than the "features" releases, and are the most stable. Snow Leopard is still probably the most solid OS Apple's ever released. They're just not as major of a release as the "features" ones. Just like the "S" releases of the iPhone, which regardless of whether you consider them "worthwhile", are not as big, and don't change as many user-facing things, as the new-number updates. That's just an objective fact which has nothing to do with whether you should get the product or not.
Ugh! One last fucking time. You made a claim that the codenamed held some deep meaning. I then noted that several of the code names used (e.g.: mountain lion, puma, and panther) are all the same cat. I then noted that even though they are the exact same cat under a different name the OSes are very, very different.
YES! There was more than "0" features in Snow Leopard! They presented many of the major ones in the fucking demo!
You said they weren't the next generation of Mac OS X, despite having the generational code name and numeral, having been marketed by Apple, and having been demoed at two different events. You attributed them to point updates for bugs fixes and minor refinements, despite their laundry list of new features, most of which are on the back-end and therefore are not as easily marketed, but something needed when you have a mature OS.
How about you show me proof that were zero features in Snow Leopard, which is both something you have now claimed and used Serlet's comment as your proof despite the existence of Snow Leopard and major under the hood changes being well known. I guess that means that GCD and OpenCL are not something you add as a minor point update. Oh, wait, they couldn't have been added at all since you said there were no new features in Snow Leopard¡
If these back-end updates are "minor updates", despite their own marketing codename, new secondary number sequence, special event demonstrations, and NEW features then what do you call the tertiary updates that come over the next year with bug fixes, refinements, stability features, no major architecture changes, no major kernel changes, no major changes from 32 to 64-bit code? Those are the fucking minor updates!
I'm not sure if you're just being a concern troll with your "those minor updates like service packs are the best ones" or if you're knowledge of SW is so superficial that you can't see how major back-end changes can be complex despite not having many flashy bells and whistles in which to help market to the plebs. Even though you don't want to see under the veneer these updates are significant and no one at Apple would say that these updates to their low-end code base is nothing but a minor update.
I said that they belong to the same generation as their predecessors. That is not the same as saying they are not "worthwhile." The back-end refinements are much appreciated by pretty much everyone, I'd think. Having entire releases that consist primarily of back-end improvements and not new features, however, is a relatively recent development. Prior to Snow Leopard, every release of Mac OS X was announced with some huge "X New Features!" announcement.
The price of a maxed-out MBP is $3199. How should we arrange payment?
Those are the bugfix updates.
Traditional software version numbers have three parts: X.Y.Z, where X is the major version, Y is the minor version, and Z is the bugfix version. Since OS X has become a brand in and of itself, X is fixed to 10 here, so the Y number has been used to indicate both major and minor versions. (In the Classic Mac OS days, Snow Leopard et al. would probably have been given x.5 version numbers.)
In my software, I've regularly released .1 and .5 updates that involved rewriting huge swaths of code under the hood. That's what you do. Apple's done that, too, and going way back. Look at 7.6 and 8.1, both of which contained huge backend improvements relative to their precessors (8.1 included an entire new file system, for crying out loud). "Major" version updates are usually reserved for new features. TBH, I'm beginning to suspect you're drunk. Why don't you put the computer down for a while, calm down, and sleep on it and see if you're still this angry tomorrow.
So you're still holding your original comment as an unwavering truth even thought it also mean that you're also claiming that mountain lion, puma, and panther are exactly the same by your own willful ignorance of that truth?
Again, for the last time, Apple clearly wanted them to be a different generation because they gave them a new name, a new number that was one above the previous generation (like all their other generational changes), then demoed and marketed them for the world to see.
So OpenCL, GCD, and the innumerable other back-end features added to Snow Leopard are, again, just "bug fix updates". What a reasonable thing to say¡ :rolleyes:
I'm hoping at some point you realize that his comment was a reference to flashy forward-facing features, and that even then it was false, but this is going on the 6th(?) time I've made that clear and you're still claiming there were "0" new features added to Snow Leopard despite repeated proof that features were indeed added tells me the rudimentary logic of "GCD was at least one new feature added to SL so either I misinterpreted Serlet's comment or he wasn't being actual factual" is beyond your comprehension.
And then went onstage and publicly tied them firmly to the previous releases.
Please tell me where I said Snow Leopard was a "bug fix update."
Please tell me where I claimed that there were 0 new features (as opposed to stating that Serlet claimed it, which he did, and which I proved with the screencap).
Personally attacking me after you dug your own grave isn't going to help your lost argument. Pathetic.
Booting into 64-bit, GCD, OpenCL, and countless other features are new to SL. IOW, they weren't available in Leopard, were they? Nope! New… Features.
Minor versions are the tertiary versions. Those are the bug fixes. Stop being so obtuse.
You claimed it and then used Serlet's comment focusing on UI features as proof that he meant it for the entirety of the OS, even though it's been proven now 7(?) times that there were new features in SL that were MAJOR changes to the code base even if you still need flashy new icons to make a determination of what is major or minor for OS X from the inside out.
"Apple can't run without Steve Jobs"
"Tim Cook only cares about homo stuff."
"The iPad is a market failure."
"The S-series iPhones are just Apple wanting more money for the same thing."
"El Cap is so Apple can fix stuff it didn't want to fix with Yosemite."
**** these people!
Not to mention all the times you've accused me of saying things I didn't say. Calm. Down. So were C blocks and reference NSURLs. So what?
Well, let's see. What does -[NSProcessInfo operatingSystemVersion] call them? majorVersion, minorVersion, patchVersion. What did the old Gestalt() API call them? gestaltSystemVersionMajor, gestaltSystemVersionMinor, gestaltSystemVersionBugFix.
Clearly minor is the secondary version, and bugfix (or patch) is the tertiary. Let's make a bet. $3199 (on top of the $3199 you already owe me) if you can find a quote of mine where I said, myself, that SL had zero new features, rather than saying that Serlet said that and that it was part of the narrative.
Dude, I've got Mac stuff going back to 1986. I've been a Mac fan probably before you were born. Do you even know what my username comes from? I haven't said one thing in this whole thread that was "discrediting" Apple, not that they're thin-skinned enough that it would matter to anyone but you.
Didn't say it.
Certainly didn't say that.
Didn't say that either.
Nope, didn't say it.
Nor that.
"Personally attacking me after you dug your own grave isn't going to help your lost argument. Pathetic."
I'm so sick of these asshats trying to discredit Apple at every turn.
"Apple can't run without Steve Jobs"
"Tim Cook only cares about homo stuff."
"The iPad is a market failure."
"The S-series iPhones are just Apple wanting more money for the same thing."
"El Cap is so Apple can fix stuff it didn't want to fix with Yosemite."
**** these people!
Sometimes I want to read a thread, hoping it would give me an interesting discussion to read/participate, but all I see is 3 posts and 37 non viewable posts as they are on my block list.
And now he's onto saying how long he's owned Macs. Classic move.
I asked him to prove there were zero no features, to which he posted an image from the keynote saying ""0" New features" which he immediately follows up with some ridiculous statement of me giving him $3199, and NOW he's writing, "Let's make a bet. $3199 (on top of the $3199 you already owe me) if you can find a quote of mine where I said, myself, that SL had zero new features, rather than saying that Serlet said that and that it was part of the narrative," without seemingly realizing that his photo and sentences as a response to my query are in fact an absolute statement that he did suggest that there are no features in Snow Leopard, which he's now saying he never suggested. Is this guy off his rocker or just being a douche?
BTW, I know you've been systematically lying and misquoting me the whole thread, but I wasn't really upset until that "homo stuff" one. That was a new low, even for you.
If it's not an option to be both perhaps in a future dot release update thread we can get it as a new feature.
Holy moly, nitpicking about version numbering schemes. I see Solipsism is still here. I remember him back from the days when the Mac OS X Hints forum was still alive and well. I haven't been regularly posting on Apple-related sites in a while, but I guess I'll fan the flames of this argument and put my own two-cents in. I think Solipsism has misinterpreted and is horribly overreacting to comments made by Durandal1707. Not everyone that makes a vaguely negative-sounding comment is trying to "discredit Apple" or otherwise disparage them.
The term "next generation" can be highly subjective at times. It frequently depends on context to put things into perspective. Sometimes the term is reserved for extremely large improvements and/or changes in a system, but many times it's used for any kind of new version of a product.
The Mac Pro (Late 2013) has a radically different design compared to previous models, like the ones from 2012 and 2010. Apple says it has "next-generation PCIe-based flash storage" and "new-generation Xeon processors". You could say this is the "next generation" of Mac Pro.
The 2013 MacBook Air featured Intel's Haswell CPUs. The 2014 models had slightly faster Haswell CPUs. Is this "next generation"?
The iPod touch line is now in it's 6th generation. It's very similar in appearance to the 5th generation, but has faster processor along with some other minor improvements. It literally is the "next generation" of iPod touch, but hasn't changed much visually.
I'm typing on a 15" MacBook Pro (Mid 2010). In 2011, they upgraded it to use Intel's "next generation" Sandy Bridge CPUs and AMD GPUs. Was this significant enough to make this the "next generation" of MacBook Pro...? Or would this phrase only be reserved for events like the switch to Unibody enclosures?
I could go on with a bunch of other stupid examples and you can go and nitpick all of them to death. I agree with Durandal1707 that Apple's naming schemes generally indicates when a version is a significant refinement of the previous version.
These kinds of things are done for software development purposes. After a certain point in the software development cycle, there is typically a "code freeze" where developers do not add additional features to the software and only focus on making sure the features that are already implemented are bug-free. There can also be code "branches" where Apple continues to develop new features for future versions in one branch while keeping the main branch that is about to be released to consumers "frozen". For example, Apple may have been working on transit directions for their Maps app for a long time, but they obviously did not add the incomplete and buggy code to iOS 7 or 8, they waited until it was of a decent quality before introducing it into iOS 9.
Durandal1707 is not saying that Snow Leopard is a worthless upgrade to Leopard, or that the iPhone 5S is a worthless upgrade from the iPhone 5. He's saying there is an emerging pattern with OS X where there are some versions that introduce more new user-facing features, and other versions that introduce more significant backend enhancements and overall refinements. This is the result of a fairly constant software development life cycle, which includes the "freezes" and "branches" as mentioned earlier. Obviously all versions have a mix of both kinds of features, but there is a pattern starting to form around these features and Apple's naming scheme. I don't think anybody but the most dense troll would believe Snow Leopard had "zero features". Apple was clearly using that slide as a hyperbole for the fact that the majority of features were not user-facing but actually low-level system improvements. They then used these improvements to make more user-facing features in later versions.
This is similar to the "tick-tock" strategy Intel uses when designing CPUs. One "tick" indicates a new smaller hardware manufacturing process, and one "tock" indicates a new microarchitecture design.
The next time somebody says something vaguely negative about Apple, don't automatically assume they are trolling and being anti-Apple. Unless maybe they're using obvious troll terms like "sheeple" or "crapple" or some nonsense like that.
Holy moly, nitpicking about version numbering schemes. I see Solipsism is still here. I remember him back from the days when the Mac OS X Hints forum was still alive and well. I haven't been regularly posting on Apple-related sites in a while, but I guess I'll fan the flames of this argument and put my own two-cents in. I think Solipsism has misinterpreted and is horribly overreacting to comments made by Durandal1707. Not everyone that makes a vaguely negative-sounding comment is trying to "discredit Apple" or otherwise disparage them.
The next time somebody says something vaguely negative about Apple, don't automatically assume they are trolling and being anti-Apple. Unless maybe they're using obvious troll terms like "sheeple" or "crapple" or some nonsense like that.
Unfortunately this has become common practice here at AI. The usual suspects (all of whom have been added to my blocklist) freak out at comments that aren't 100% worshipful of Apple and its executives. The sickness seems to be spreading.
No, not everyone, but there is a pattern.
It is highly subjective, and Apple makes that determination. They have chosen a tick-tock method on a mature OS that focuses on user-forward features one generation and then back-end features the next generation. One may not like that a complete focus on making their code-base 64-bit, added GCD or OpenCL as being included in their generational nomenclature, but Apple does give it a sequential number increase and promotes it as such, so we shouldn't argue that based on the evidence of "well the UI looks the same to me so it's not a new version of the OS." And this isn't just Apple, this is every company. If MS wants to call their feature dump a service pack, then that is their choice. We have no way of measuring exactly how much effort goes into each new build based on what we can see with our eyes so it's foolish to claim otherwise, and, yes, i'm annoyed by anyone that claims to be more intelligent than a company with 100 thousand + employees.
Ge clearly said it was not the next generation of OS X despite the sequential numbering by Apple and he even used a screenshot to prove there were no new features despite already being given proof there were plenty of new features added to SL.
Which one of those is the minor update? Answer: Neither of them. They are split because each have their distinct hurdles. The main difference is that each are discreet issues, where as with OS X each of these generational updates are all done in code and will have overlap. There is no generational release where the back end or front end was entirely ignored, it was just the focus of their efforts.
And when released will be buggy. They'll probably have replaced Photos with something else......it'll get to a .4 or .5 update and by then they'll have moved on to OS X 10.12 <stupid name>.
Still happy with Snow Leopard.