[ankle_brains]

it will be out tomorrow sometime pending any last second bugs found.

[gorickey]

What rumor site do you run again?

This is certainly NOT true...

[msuper69]

New Flash! 10.3.2 will be out before 2004.

But then, woop-de-doo. It will be here when it gets here.

[Gankdawg]

Will it fix the chirp/buzz/wail/scream of the PM G5s?

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally posted by Gankdawg:
Will it fix the chirp/buzz/wail/scream of the PM G5s?

That seems like it would be more of a ROM update thang.

[anaphora68]

Predicting when apple is going to release something is kind of like predictiing the weather guys, we get it right about 2% of the time. Just hold off and wait.

[RayX]

Hopefully not, too early. This will be the first major update, it should be rock solid.

[SSharon]

as long as it fixes the icons I don't care when it comes

[Kate]

Originally posted by ankle_brains:
it will be out tomorrow sometime pending any last second bugs found.

Hm, rather not. A new build was seeded this night.

[Appleman]

Originally posted by RayX:
This will be the first major update.

What's the differenece between un update from x.x.0 to x.x.1 OR x.x.1 to x.x.2 ?
Seems to me that mathematically speaking it would be just as tiny, small, big, huge, whatever.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Appleman:
What's the differenece between un update from x.x.0 to x.x.1 OR x.x.1 to x.x.2 ?
Seems to me that mathematically speaking it would be just as tiny, small, big, huge, whatever.

This isn't maths. Did you think there was an incredible mega 3 generation difference between Windows 95 and Windows 98? Or they decided to develop Windows 99 inhouse only and release Windows 2000 a year later? Of course you don't! This is just a naming scheme to market the OS. System 7.7 became Mac OS 8. Why? Because Steve Jobs decided so. And Mac OS 8.6+ essentally became Mac OS 9.

Think of it this way. We'll be using Mac OS 10 for a long time to come. Meaning Mac OS 11 is in the next decade. So the major updates, the ones we pay for, will be the 10.x updates (such as 10.2 and 10.3) while free updates to 10.x systems will be called 10.x.x. These are almost always without new major features, but sometimes they bring in some minor ones. Mostly they are bugfixes and updates to Darwin. They can fix very little (like 10.3.1 did) or a lot of stuff (like 10.3.2 will according to the feature list leaked).

Bottom line: this isn't math.

[Appleman]

[Powaqqatsi]

Originally posted by voodoo:
or a lot of stuff (like 10.3.2 will according to the feature list leaked).

Got a linky for that ?

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Powaqqatsi:
Got a linky for that ?

See:

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=189990

and

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...ghlight=10.3.2

[RayX]

Originally posted by Appleman:
What's the differenece between un update from x.x.0 to x.x.1 OR x.x.1 to x.x.2 ?
Seems to me that mathematically speaking it would be just as tiny, small, big, huge, whatever.

By first major update, I meant, 10.3.1 was rushed out the door quickly to fix the Firewire and FileVault problems. 10.3.2 will see more across the board bug fixes and other improvements, new drivers for graphics cards, etc.

[Appleman]

Originally posted by RayX:
By first major update, I meant, 10.3.1 was rushed out the door quickly to fix the Firewire and FileVault problems. 10.3.2 will see more across the board bug fixes and other improvements, new drivers for graphics cards, etc.

I understand this, as well as Voodoo's explanation about Windows figures.
It's just that they should either give it names or try to stick to a more mathematical way of changing numbers. If they rush out certain fixes, they can simply do that in the Software Update panel, like the security updates. Question is more: when do you give your application a new number, when do you go from OS 8.5 to 8.6 and when do you decide to jump from OS 8.6 to OS 9. I guess it depends on the amount of changes in the core program, and, maybe even more important, it will depend on the competition: Netscape 4.7 jumped to Netscape 6 just because IE. I guess this is all about marketing. WordPerfect 3.5 for Mac was more capable than WordPerfect 5.1 for MS-DOS, but it sounded not so mature.

Windows jumping from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 was more a change from giving your application a name instead of a number, so Voodoo actually didn't really had a good point

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Appleman:
Windows jumping from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 was more a change from giving your application a name instead of a number, so Voodoo actually didn't really had a good point

I wasn't making a point.

I was explaining to you (because you asked) what the logic behind the 10.x.x naming system was. The Apple version number system is infinitely more logical and better than a stupid 'naming' scheme. But that seems to go ok with the schmoes out there. For whom do you think 'Jaguar' and 'Panther' are named? The average schmoe that's who. Is it logical - heck no! Why on God's green Earth should there be a 'mathematical' measurement on how large the vesion number should be?? We fixed 5 things so we can raise the version number up 0.05 notches. Yeah good work!! Oh wow we made some major changes here - whoa people this one is a .38 update!! There is no Euclidian scale between 1.0 release and a 2.0 release. It is just a marketing thing or a milestone thing to put an incrimental update number in between.

iTunes jumps from 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 without much change save for a facelift and mp4 support. 'Logically' iTunes should be at oh say 1.3 or is that 1.3701? Adobe Photoshop would be coming close to 4.98 and ... When the fictional Photoshop reaches 5.0 hasn't it only gotten 0.02 notches better? Well then why should people pay for it? That is the marketing thing. People have actually been complaining about paying for OS X 'incremental updates' better known as Jaguar (10.2) and Panther (10.3) because they don't think it's worth it to pay for a 0.1 incremental update. What is there some kind of an international software worthiness committee that hands every software the licence to upgrade their version number after carfully reviewing just HOW much better it is and HOW much has been changed? No of course not. The developer decides this at his own discression. Apple has decided to go with low incremantal updates of OS 10 for MAJOR updates. If the Apple naming scheme of the 90s was still in effect Panther would be Mac OS 12 (sporting a new look on the Finder and all!).

I don't know what you have against the current scheme for updates. The numbers are ONLY to differentiate between different releases of the OS. How much as changed is no secret and it is totally up to the user to decide for himself if the update is worth it or not. Whether it is a 0.1 update or a 0.01 update. How hard can it be just to pay attention to what is happening and what does it really matter if the numbers don't match between themselves in regard to the changes made in the OS? 10.3.2 is simply a release number for a version of Panther.

/rant

[Appleman]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I don't know what you have against the current scheme for updates.

I have nothing against it, actually I don't care.
As I said it would be difficult to maintain a certain mathematical logic in it, but I think that is more or less the way it meant in the early days. I see the numbers as a differentiation between the former and futere versions, nothing more, nothing less.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Appleman:
I see the numbers as a differentiation between the former and futere versions, nothing more, nothing less.

Yet you posted
"What's the differenece between un update from x.x.0 to x.x.1 OR x.x.1 to x.x.2 ?"

When you already knew the answer was:
"numbers [are] a differentiation between the former and futere versions, nothing more, nothing less."

??

[Appleman]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Yet you posted
"What's the differenece between un update from x.x.0 to x.x.1 OR x.x.1 to x.x.2 ?"

When you already knew the answer was:
"numbers [are] a differentiation between the former and futere versions, nothing more, nothing less."

??

It supposed to be a retorical question.

[Powaqqatsi]

Originally posted by voodoo:
See:

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=189990

and

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...ghlight=10.3.2

thanks