Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

voicebox · May 19, 2007, 04:37 AM

I hear 10.4.10 is about to be seeded. Thoughts anyone? Discuss?

Simon · May 19, 2007, 04:45 AM

Mac Rumors: Mac OS X 10.4.10 Seeded to Developers
Think Secret - Apple drops 10.4.10 on developers
AppleInsider | Apple preps first builds of Mac OS X 10.4.10 for testing

Obviously not much is known.

voicebox · May 19, 2007, 04:51 AM

Originally Posted by Simon

Mac Rumors: Mac OS X 10.4.10 Seeded to Developers
Think Secret - Apple drops 10.4.10 on developers
AppleInsider | Apple preps first builds of Mac OS X 10.4.10 for testing

Obviously not much is known.

Thanks for the info Simon

confuzedwizard · May 19, 2007, 08:30 AM

I hope it addresses the fact that sites like zillow.com can't load on Safari

Tomchu · May 19, 2007, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by confuzedwizard

I hope it addresses the fact that sites like zillow.com can't load on Safari

Talk to zillow.com. It was their choice to run a browser detection routine and reject Safari.

CharlesS · May 19, 2007, 01:50 PM

Yep, it won't matter what Apple does, unless they make it spoof the user-agent by default, there's no way to make that site work without their cooperation.

TETENAL · May 19, 2007, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by confuzedwizard

I hope it addresses the fact that sites like zillow.com can't load on Safari

Sites like zillow.com can load on Safari. They just don't want to.

C.A.T.S. CEO · May 19, 2007, 03:14 PM

cool, 10.4.10.... but when will 10.4.11 be out ?!

PS, isn't this the 1st X.X.10 release?

TheoCryst · May 19, 2007, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO

PS, isn't this the 1st X.X.10 release?

Yep: 10.0.4, 10.1.5, 10.2.8, and 10.3.9. It makes sense, since this is the longest we've had to wait between versions of the OS.

Catfish_Man · May 19, 2007, 03:40 PM

c'mon new webkit! (please?)

C.A.T.S. CEO · May 19, 2007, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by TheoCryst

Yep: 10.0.4, 10.1.5, 10.2.8, and 10.3.9. It makes sense, since this is the longest we've had to wait between versions of the OS.

hmm, well the way its going we can look for 10.5.11 before 10.6 comes out...

gradient · May 19, 2007, 07:46 PM

Am I completely missing a joke here or something? Is not 10.4.10 EXACTLY the same mathematically as 10.4.1? Why wouldn't the next Tiger update, if there is one, be 10.4.91? or 10.4.95? or anything at all that isn't exactly the same mathematically as an already released OS version?

slpdLoad · May 19, 2007, 08:00 PM

Math never quite applied to version numbers in my experience. If you stick something onto 10.4.9, such as 10.4.9.1, then not only is it rediculously long, but you've just started over with another 1-9 set.

As far as I'm concerned they should have just stopped developing Tiger completely after the 10.4.9 release.

Art Vandelay · May 19, 2007, 08:58 PM

Considering that there's no such thing as a number as 10.4.1 or 10.4.10 in mathematics, then they can't be mathematically the same.

gradient · May 19, 2007, 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

Considering that there's no such thing as a number as 10.4.1 or 10.4.10 in mathematics, then they can't be mathematically the same.

You may have a point there..... (backs away sheepishly).

Did I mention that I dropped out of highschool math? lol.

Peter · May 19, 2007, 09:31 PM

version numbers don't obey the same laws as mathematical numbers

Tomchu · May 19, 2007, 11:11 PM

I wonder if we'll have to go over this whole debate again if Leopard reaches a .10 point release ...

voicebox · May 20, 2007, 03:42 AM

Originally Posted by Tomchu

I wonder if we'll have to go over this whole debate again if Leopard reaches a .10 point release ...

Probably .....!

Big Mac · May 20, 2007, 05:00 AM

Originally Posted by gradient

Am I completely missing a joke here or something? Is not 10.4.10 EXACTLY the same mathematically as 10.4.1? Why wouldn't the next Tiger update, if there is one, be 10.4.91? or 10.4.95? or anything at all that isn't exactly the same mathematically as an already released OS version?

As others have said, mathematics has nearly nothing to do with version numbers. There is only one decimal point in a string of numbers in math, for one.

P · May 20, 2007, 08:39 AM

The point in a version number is not a decimal point - it simply denotes the split between the version-revision-fix levels (to use Apple's original names for them). They could have used a colon or a semicolon instead, and perhaps that would have been better, because you're hardly the first to ask that question.

Note that Apple made the same mistake when they designed the Gestalt data years ago - they used NBCD coding and only left one digit for the "fix", so the version number of 10.4.9 in Gestalt is 0x1049. If they had called it 0xA49 it would have been simple hex and they could have called 10.4.10 0xA4A, but that 0x104A doesn't make sense (unless this is OS XVI). I guess they'll have to deprecate that Gestalt ID and make up something new.

Sourbook · May 20, 2007, 10:08 AM

Using the Universal Decimal Classification it could be 10+04/10

gradient · May 20, 2007, 12:57 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

As others have said, mathematics has nearly nothing to do with version numbers. There is only one decimal point in a string of numbers in math, for one.

I already admitted that I was wrong. No real need for redundancy here.

Obi Wan's Ghost · May 20, 2007, 02:09 PM

What is the point of the second decimal point when Apple could use alphabetical versioning, 10.4a, 10.4b, etc. That would allow up to 26 easily named updates per major OS revision.

Sourbook · May 20, 2007, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost

What is the point of the second decimal point when Apple could use alphabetical versioning, 10.4a, 10.4b, etc. That would allow up to 26 easily named updates per major OS revision.

People might confuse 10.4d with 10.40.

Obi Wan's Ghost · May 20, 2007, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by Sourbook

People might confuse 10.4d with 10.40.

Microsoft's Indian programmers?

chabig · May 20, 2007, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost

What is the point of the second decimal point when Apple could use alphabetical versioning, 10.4a, 10.4b, etc. That would allow up to 26 easily named updates per major OS revision.

Why limit yourself to 26 minor versions? Apple's current scheme allows unlimited minor revisions.

In the end, it's arbitrary and doesn't matter. Don't make a big deal out of it.

CharlesS · May 20, 2007, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost

What is the point of the second decimal point when Apple could use alphabetical versioning, 10.4a, 10.4b, etc. That would allow up to 26 easily named updates per major OS revision.

Because "a", "b", and "d", appended after a version number already mean alpha, beta, and development.

Person Man · May 21, 2007, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by Obi Wan's Ghost

What is the point of the second decimal point when Apple could use alphabetical versioning, 10.4a, 10.4b, etc. That would allow up to 26 easily named updates per major OS revision.

Apple could do away with their versions entirely and use their build numbers:

Mac OS X 10.4 build 8P2137

Perhaps if they said 10.4 revision 10 it would be less confusing?

Peter · May 21, 2007, 07:39 PM

no, thats much more confusing.

CatOne · May 21, 2007, 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by Person Man

Apple could do away with their versions entirely and use their build numbers:

Mac OS X 10.4 build 8P2137

Perhaps if they said 10.4 revision 10 it would be less confusing?

I think that would be more confusing.

Especially with the fact that 10.4.9 PPC has a different build number than 10.4.9 Intel, *and* there are hardware-specific build numbers. For example, my 8-core has build 8P4037. How would anyone know what build # that relates to?

I don't understand why it's so confusing that 10.4.10 follows 10.4.9.

I mean, would you expect 9.4.9 to follow 9.4.8? They are just integers separated by decimals. I'd think 10.11.12 would logically follow 10.11.11, no?

Peter · May 21, 2007, 07:46 PM

It might be pronounced Ten.Four.OneZero ?
Edit: In fact, Ten.Four.Ten isn't actually that confusing.......

Laurence · May 22, 2007, 01:52 AM

I'm not sure why people seem so confused about the versioning... Windows XP's version is 5.1.2600 and no one seems to think anything is wrong with that. Windows 95 was version 4.00.950. These are just sets of three completely separate numbers separated by a character. The character happens to be a period. The Mac OS could just as easily be versioned like 10-04-10 or 10#4#10. The period is NOT a decimal point a decimal point looks the same but by definition only occurs ONCE in a number.

Simon · May 22, 2007, 03:07 AM

I agree. I see no problem with 10.4.10 following 10.4.9. Nobody ever said revision numbers had to be single-digit.

P · May 22, 2007, 09:26 AM

There is reason for confusion, because many people use different methods for versioning. Apple is using the old UNIX way - compare Sun and SGI in the good old days. Linux uses a different version where the odd revision (middle) number denotes an unstable branch. MS method is to replace the fix number with the build number and then not update the version number at all even for rather major fixes like service packs.

(btw: 2600 for the XP build number is a joke, referring to the old hacker code where 2600 Hz was the frequency used to hack AT&T phone systems. The number was around 2540 for the second-to-last build and then jumped to 2600 for the final one. Sad but true.)

Person Man · May 22, 2007, 10:44 AM

Originally Posted by Laurence

...and no one seems to think anything is wrong with that.

When was the last time you heard someone talking about Windows version 5.1 (Build 2600.xpsp_sp2_gdr.070227-2554)? Yes, that's the current version number for Windows XP as displayed in the About Windows box. People refer to it as Windows XP Service Pack 2. Much less confusion.

None of us are confused about 10.4.10, but there are plenty of non-techie users who will be confused. I don't see what's so confusing about saying Mac OS X 10.4 revision 10, however. It would be much clearer for the end user.

chabig · May 22, 2007, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by Person Man

there are plenty of non-techie users who will be confused.

I simply disagree. Nobody will be confused.

kmkkid · May 22, 2007, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by Person Man

When was the last time you heard someone talking about Windows version 5.1 (Build 2600.xpsp_sp2_gdr.070227-2554)? Yes, that's the current version number for Windows XP as displayed in the About Windows box. People refer to it as Windows XP Service Pack 2. Much less confusion.

None of us are confused about 10.4.10, but there are plenty of non-techie users who will be confused. I don't see what's so confusing about saying Mac OS X 10.4 revision 10, however. It would be much clearer for the end user.

Who's going to be confused? To a non techie, math class dropout, they'll understand the difference between .1 and .10. Even if there were a completely computer illiterate mathematician, they'd know there cannot be 2 decimal points in a mathematical number. Not to mention, most people just install whatever update is pushed through system update and don't even look at the revision numbers, nevermind large point updates. When's the last time you heard someone go into the store and ask for OS X 10.4 or OS X 10.5, they call it by it's marketing name; Mac OS X Tiger, or Leopard.

Maybe this release should be named "Mac OS X 10.Tiger.10"; or to get the redundancy out, "Mac OS X.Tiger.10"

*shrug*

Person Man · May 22, 2007, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by kmkkid

Maybe this release should be named "Mac OS X 10.Tiger.10"; or to get the redundancy out, "Mac OS X.Tiger.10"

What is wrong with "10.4 revision 10?"

Simon · May 22, 2007, 01:07 PM

Takes up more space. And I need to type more.

kmkkid · May 22, 2007, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by Person Man

What is wrong with "10.4 revision 10?"

Nothing. We can name it:

Mac OS X Tiger Revision 10

...if you'd prefer

All are correct, but alas 10.4.10 is easier to type.

P · May 22, 2007, 01:20 PM

I think that if you ask Mr. John Smith about which version of Windows he's using, he'll answer "XP" or "Vista" if he even understands the question. He doesn't have a clue about SP2 - MS had to launch an ad campaign to get people to download SP2. Similarly, if you ask most Mac users (excluding us forum regulars), they'll say "Tiger" if they've bought an upgrade for it and probably not understand the question if they're just using whatever the computer came with. HOWEVER, if they ask something on a forum and the answer depends on what version they're using, we can point them to the "About this Computer" and ask them what the version number is in that box. If you have the same situation on Windows, you can have someone find out if they have installed SP2 or not, but not which patchlevel they're up wrt hotfixes etc. The versioning system has definite advantages. Security updates are not mentioned in that box, which is a weakness in my book, but then they usually affect only a very few things.

"Revision 10" sucks because it reminds me of System 7.5.3, something that I usually only think of when I wake up screaming and sweating... No, not really, but it sounds slight unprofessional for some reason, that it took 10 revisions to get it usable. I suppose I could live with it.

There is a weakness for the semi-computerliterate who might think that 10.4.9 is the highest there is. If System Update can't convince them to upgrade and they're not bright enough to investigate why they're getting bugged about an "old" version they will stay with 10.4.9. There are worse fates.

Macola · May 22, 2007, 01:25 PM

I'm surprised no-one has raised the issue of whether it's "10-point-four" or "10-dot-four"...

kmkkid · May 22, 2007, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by Macola

I'm surprised no-one has raised the issue of whether it's "10-point-four" or "10-dot-four"...

It's neither. It's "ten-pixel-four-pixel-ten"

Laurence · May 23, 2007, 12:27 AM

I seriously don't think anyone who doesn't know a great deal about versioning is going to be confused. If I asked my parents what version of OS X they had installed they'd just say "the newest one" because they just click OK whenever the software update thing tells them to update and that's how most people are. I'm on the QA team for tech support for a major software vendor and 9 out of 10 calls I listen to to are the same. The customer doesn't know what version of the OS, the product they called in on or anything else. Sometimes they don't even know which one of our products they need help with. The average person just doesn't care what "version" of anything they're using. The same is true for the Windows customers, the vast majority think they're running Windows 2003 just because that's what version of Word is installed on the machine.

Wiskedjak · May 23, 2007, 12:40 AM

Only Mac users would fixate on the numerical formating of a bug-fix release ...

wingdo · May 23, 2007, 01:52 PM

I find it odd and sad that for as long as OS X has been out (and even prior to that) people have been arguing how Apple would increment the minor fix number up to if it ever past the point of x.x.9. For YEARS this has been debated in these forums ad nauseum with everyone saying what they thought Apple would do.

Well Apple has spoken, they have made their choice ....... Why are people still debating what it will be / should be called? OS 10 dot 4 dot 10, it's not that hard to understand.

newtech · May 27, 2007, 03:54 PM

All wrong,, It should be 10.4.A going into hexadecimal revisions so the last iteration of 10.4 would be 10.4.F. And 11.0.0 would be preceded by 10.5.F

ApeInTheShell · May 27, 2007, 05:46 PM

I agree.

mpancha · May 27, 2007, 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by gradient

Am I completely missing a joke here or something? Is not 10.4.10 EXACTLY the same mathematically as 10.4.1? Why wouldn't the next Tiger update, if there is one, be 10.4.91? or 10.4.95? or anything at all that isn't exactly the same mathematically as an already released OS version?

I think you're confusing 10.4.10 with 10.4.1.0

10.4.1 = 10.4.1.0
10.4.1 != 10.4.10

its a version number, not the same as math rules, and in math there aren't double decimals.

Tomchu · May 27, 2007, 09:35 PM

OMG. Everyone who still doesn't get it or doesn't want to accept it ... just shut the hell up.