Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

ratlater · Aug 15, 2002, 02:06 PM

DISCLAIMER: I do not personally believe what follows, so please direct all angry comments and flames at each other.

I just heard this from a friend of mine who does actually know someone who works at Apple. According to this person Apple rebuilt 6C115 with a few patches about 3 days ago, so according to this person there is are 2 versions of 6C115. I *might*

this supposed new 6C115 in a day or so, and when I get I'll check the MD5.

Again, I don't think there are 2 6C115 builds, this is just what I heard from someone who is for the most part trustworthy.

May the fighting begin...

-matt

SGen · Aug 15, 2002, 02:30 PM

This might be possible. But I don't know about the timing. I downloaded one version of 6C115 on carracho that the first CD was around 400-something MB. After installing, I at one point noticed that a few apps had a beta version number (one particularly I remember was the Bluetooth app.)

Then I downloaded a 6C115 where the first CD was around 600-something MB (about what you get on a standard CD). This is what I'm using now, and it has NO beta numbers for any of the apps.

I will probably when jag comes out go to the store and check the version numbers to see. (And maybe buy a copy- but I'll admit I'm still pissed about the lack of upgrade pricing. But I could change my mind.)

cwasko · Aug 15, 2002, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by ratlater:
DISCLAIMER: I do not personally believe what follows, so please direct all angry comments and flames at each other.

I just heard this from a friend of mine who does actually know someone who works at Apple. According to this person Apple rebuilt 6C115 with a few patches about 3 days ago, so according to this person there is are 2 versions of 6C115. I *might* this supposed new 6C115 in a day or so, and when I get I'll check the MD5.

Again, I don't think there are 2 6C115 builds, this is just what I heard from someone who is for the most part trustworthy.

If they rebuilt 6c115 with 'a few patches', then it wouldn' be 6c115. It would probably be 6c116 but could be 6c115a. I'm not sure why anyone in their right mind would think that Apple would have 2 versions of an OS floating around that are from 2 different code sets. It makes no sense. Anyone who believes this is really screwed in the head. However, we probably won't see this as what is shipping, as it will probably be part of 10.2.1.

Wait till piracy sees this thread... OMG... run for cover.

gorickey · Aug 15, 2002, 03:13 PM

Piracy, where art thou?

ratlater · Aug 15, 2002, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by gorickey:
Piracy, where art thou?

I hope he didn't have a heart attack after reading this thread

-matt

piracy · Aug 15, 2002, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by SGen:
This might be possible. But I don't know about the timing. I downloaded one version of 6C115

Then you didn't have 6C115.

Bottom line: documentation and the format of the CD has been changed. The discs won't be the same, even though it's the same 6C115 they contain. People like this thread starter, and many others, will take that as proof that their theory is correct. Believe whatever you want, I don't really care anymore.

I can tell you categorically, without a doubt, that 6C115 was not "rebuilt with a few patches". 6C115 has not been touched for over two weeks. 6C115 is 6C115. THIS IS NOT MY OPINION, IT IS FACT.

mikellanes · Aug 15, 2002, 03:34 PM

::Cha-Ching::
Another $5

Piracy... hows it goin'? heh

miro7 · Aug 15, 2002, 03:37 PM

I can tell you categorically, without a doubt, that 6C115 was not "rebuilt with a few patches". 6C115 has not been touched for over two weeks. 6C115 is 6C115. THIS IS NOT MY OPINION, IT IS FACT.

Piracy, just so everyone understands this point, could you clarify exactly what you mean here? Are you saying that there could be a patched version of 6C115 called 6C115a

ratlater · Aug 15, 2002, 03:50 PM

Just for the record I don't think there are two versions of 6C115. I just found it curious that someone I know who is fairly trustworthy heard this from an Apple source. We'll all now 100% for sure in a week or so anyway when we get the packaged cds. I'm 99.9% sure we'll see that the packaged cd is identical to the 6C115 developer release.

-matt

winterlandia · Aug 15, 2002, 03:55 PM

Well, I heard from my brother who has a friend that works for aol that is married to a woman that has a cousin that works at IBM which held a secret meeting with a guy that is next door neighbors to Steve Jobs whose wife overheard in her garden talking about how there is yet another pressing of the cds going on that has c6115f on it. This secret version-- not the one that's shipping with macs right now is rumored to have the "hello kitty" cartoon character which does backflips instead of a spinning aqua wheel of death. Also, ftp in the finder is fixed in this version.

iJed · Aug 15, 2002, 04:10 PM

There can only be one build 6C115 or else there would be absolutely no point whatsoever to having a build number. However different disk images of 6C115 could possibly contain - I'm not saying this is likely - different versions of some of the included apps. I seriously doubt that things like the Bluetooth app have anything to do with the main OS build number. After all they have their own build numbers.

eep! · Aug 15, 2002, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by SGen:
This might be possible. But I don't know about the timing. I downloaded one version of 6C115 on carracho that the first CD was around 400-something MB. After installing, I at one point noticed that a few apps had a beta version number (one particularly I remember was the Bluetooth app.)

Then I downloaded a 6C115 where the first CD was around 600-something MB (about what you get on a standard CD). This is what I'm using now, and it has NO beta numbers for any of the apps.

I will probably when jag comes out go to the store and check the version numbers to see. (And maybe buy a copy- but I'll admit I'm still pissed about the lack of upgrade pricing. But I could change my mind.)

So� you got a different build of Mac OS X because the apps had different version numbers? what?
I don't think a different build of iChat or Bluetooth or whatever constitutes a different build number for the whole OS.
wait! I see what you mean! I've got PS3 on classic, I've got a different build of 9.2! nah-nah-na-na-nuh!

KidRed · Aug 15, 2002, 08:40 PM

hahahahahahaha

brainchild2b · Aug 15, 2002, 10:55 PM

Actually, 6c115b is out, and it's going on some of the retail cds. Some people won't need the software update that will be available soon. 6c115b fixes the FTP issue. I'm running it now.

Footy · Aug 15, 2002, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by brainchild2b:
Actually, 6c115b is out, and it's going on some of the retail cds. Some people won't need the software update that will be available soon. 6c115b fixes the FTP issue. I'm running it now.

You guys are going to give piracy fits!

It's very funny stuff though.

Currawong · Aug 15, 2002, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by brainchild2b:
Actually, 6c115b is out, and it's going on some of the retail cds. Some people won't need the software update that will be available soon. 6c115b fixes the FTP issue. I'm running it now.

6c115bulls*** you mean? There are no later builds anywhere. If any updates come out, there will be a later build number. No a, b, c, d or any other nonsense.

OpenStep · Aug 16, 2002, 02:01 AM

Somewhere in the 10.1 updates there was an a revision added to the build number. I did a clean install of 10.1 a couple weeks ago and it was after some update the about box did show the "a" after the build number so I woudln't be suprised if this happens with 10.2.

Sarc · Aug 16, 2002, 02:05 AM

all right then, lets solve the apps **** first.

Me ... here there are some of the most representative apps in 10.2 first number is in the Info window, second number is in the About window in the app.

Apple System Profiler
3.0
3.0(v14)

Audio MIDI Setup
-
1.0(v1.0)

Bluetooth File Exchange
-
1.0.0(1.0.0f3)

Disk Copy
10.2
10.2(v53.1)

Disk Utility
10.2
10.2(v86)

Installer
1.3
1.3(v194)

NetInfo Manager
1.2
1.2(v95)

ODBC Administrator
1.0
1.0(v1.0)

Print Center
2.0
2.0(v2.0)

Terminal
1.3
1.3(v81)

ok ppl. lets see if they concurr.
Also specify if you formated before installing 115 and if you had any jagw!re builds before 115 and installed without erasing the HDD first.

I erased everything before installing.

Sarc

Zimphire · Aug 16, 2002, 03:13 AM

I think Apple should just repalce build number with the word "Retard"

moki · Aug 16, 2002, 03:31 AM

Originally posted by ratlater:
I just heard this from a friend of mine who does actually know someone who works at Apple. According to this person Apple rebuilt 6C115 with a few patches about 3 days ago, so according to this person there is are 2 versions of 6C115. I *might* this supposed new 6C115 in a day or so, and when I get I'll check the MD5.

What does he do at Apple, fill the coke machines?

That isn't how build systems work.

AJ · Aug 16, 2002, 04:41 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I think Apple should just repalce build number with the word "Retard"

LoL

Why can't people get it into their heads that there is ONE build number for ONE build of Mac OS X. You cannot get two builds with the same number, or with patches applied.

I can understand piracy's frustration with this one going over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over...*records stuck*

Get over it. 6C115 is the final. Now don't make me post again.

AJ

Currawong · Aug 16, 2002, 05:26 AM

I don't know which is more amazing, people thinking that they are getting genuine, unmodified versions of Jaguar off caracho, or posting outright lies about what version of Jaguar they have.

It's this simple. There is only 1 build, 6c115. Fullstop.

If you open the Apple System Profiler and see:

Darwin Kernel Version 6.0: Sat Jul 27 13:18:52 PDT 2002; root:xnu/xnu-344.obj~1/RELEASE_PPC

then you have it.

piracy · Aug 16, 2002, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by brainchild2b:
Actually, 6c115b is out, and it's going on some of the retail cds. Some people won't need the software update that will be available soon. 6c115b fixes the FTP issue. I'm running it now.

Finder FTP is not a full featured product in 6C115. I'm not sure what you mean by "fixes", but if you're referring to people not seeing any files when they connect to certain servers, or having other problems with it, those will still exist. Finder FTP is intended for simple anonymous access to *most* sites. Not as a sophisiticated iDisk replacement. Still not sure what b2b is talking about, as only one 6C115 was built...

Mac Guru · Aug 16, 2002, 11:53 AM

*OT*

I love FinderFTP, I too got the empty folder upon connect to my website but I have found that a simple tag on of /public_html to the end of my FTP address gives me full access to files. WAY cool, now all I need is to find out if it's possible to CHMOD from the finder and I'll be set.

Mac Guru

Zimphire · Aug 16, 2002, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by AJ:

LoL

Why can't people get it into their heads that there is ONE build number for ONE build of Mac OS X. You cannot get two builds with the same number, or with patches applied.

I can understand piracy's frustration with this one going over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over...*records stuck*

Get over it. 6C115 is the final. Now don't make me post again.

AJ

I agree, if you know anyone that works at Apple, they are laughing at the retards doing this.

Do you know how much confusion that would cause?

moki · Aug 16, 2002, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by ratlater:
I just heard this from a friend of mine who does actually know someone who works at Apple. According to this person Apple rebuilt 6C115 with a few patches about 3 days ago, so according to this person there is are 2 versions of 6C115. I *might* this supposed new 6C115 in a day or so, and when I get I'll check the MD5.

I really, really hate to do this, because it will fuel the conspiracy theorists, but I've been told by some in-the-know friends of mine that the shipping in-a-box build is indeed 6c115a, not 6c115.

HOWEVER, the only change was a change to the "READ ME" file on Disk 1 -- they decided that doing another complete build was not necessary for such a mundane change. There are no code differences AT ALL, and Disk 2 and the Dev Tools disk are entirely unchanged.

This is an abnormal thing for Apple to do, but given the circumstances, it makes sense. I will now go prepare myself for the onslaught of "debug code" and "patches" and "secret build" posts.

REPEAT: there are no code changes whatsoever; if there were, there would be a different build *number* (not just tacking 'a' onto the end for versioning reasons).

wataru · Aug 17, 2002, 12:32 AM

Originally posted by moki:
I've been told by some in-the-know friends of mine that the shipping in-a-box build is indeed 6c115a, not 6c115.

GASP

moki???

rumor-mongering?!?!

I don't believe it!

moki · Aug 17, 2002, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by wataru:

GASP

moki??? rumor-mongering?!?!
I don't believe it!

Nope -- it ain't a rumor.

piracy · Aug 17, 2002, 01:47 AM

Originally posted by moki:

Nope -- it ain't a rumor.

Yep...like I said, there have been some documentation changes and changes in the formatting of the CD. But *no changes* to the OS. I'm actually not sure it's even 6C115a, as far as that goes (as there have been multiple builds of OS X in the past with lowercase letters appended to the build, and Apple does display them and refer to them as such; e.g. 5T114e on Xserve. In this case, even referring to it as "6C115a" may be unofficial; the overall point here is that 6C115 is it); in any event, it will be numbered 6C115 and will be same as the 6C115 everyone else has.