Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

starman · Apr 2, 2005, 09:57 AM

Cool. I just DLed that from Apple's site. Off to burn and install!

Mike

starman · Apr 2, 2005, 12:34 PM

Burned and installed.

The option to transfer my info from my Panther partition worked almost flawlessly. It had a touch of difficulty finding my shared network drive for some reason, but I did it manually and it's OK now.

Off to play with it.

Mike

TETENAL · Apr 2, 2005, 01:11 PM

When Tiger is gold then it is complete and goes to the press and will be distributed to the resellers which takes 10 days or so.

Now we know that Apple also has Safari 1.3 in development which is actually just a Safari 2.0 with the new features in Tiger stripped. If Safari 2.0 would in fact be complete then Safari 1.3 would be as well. However the Safari 1.3 update doesn't have to be pressed to CD. It will just be downloadable via software update.

However, we didn't see a Safari 1.3 update yet, which means Safari 2.0 is not yet finished and therefore neither is Tiger.

starman · Apr 2, 2005, 01:24 PM

Tiger allows me to sync with my Nokia 6620! WHOO!!!!!!!!!!

Mike

Moose · Apr 2, 2005, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by asdasd:
I suspect however that a lot of people would confuse the x.1 with an x.10 release. Because, to most people , the point seems like a decimal place. And - since I have to spell it out seemingly - the 0 in 10.4.10 would seem redundant to someone who thinks as point releases a decimal places. I thought I would not have to spell that out.

This logic is every bit as retarded as that of the people almost three years ago who assumed that the Jaguar build after 6C99 would, for some magical reason, be 6D1.

The dot determines significance of the digit (major, minor, maintenance, anal-retentive bugfix, etc.). By this logic, it shouldn't be 10.4.10, but it should be 1.4.1! (Of course, some people argue that Tiger really is version 1.4 of Mac OS X, but the number that really matters is the build number, anyway.)

This is why most software manufacturers in the real world do not release any x.10 release, if they can help it. Often they stick on a x.9.x release. ( Like GCC, which was for nerds)

Most software manufacturers in the "real world" don't use sensible version numbers anyway. Just about every year, they add a feature or two and bump the major version number. Many times, they even skip version numbers to catch up with the competition.

I don't recall the gcc case you mention. They stuck on X.9.x? How far did they get on the x?

So - it's clear - were some software to advertise itself as only running on 10.4.10, or later, it would confuse people running 10.4.1 ( or later). This is fairly obvious to most marketering departments.

Sorry, it isn't clear. This only confuses people whose minds are so addled that they create, out of whole cloth, an imaginary decimal point between the two digits of a two digit number.

Once again, the numbers one and ten are NOT the same, and it really bothers me that people think they are when it comes to version numbers. It's intellectual laziness, pure and simple.

starman · Apr 2, 2005, 01:42 PM

It's not laziness at all. I don't know where you work, but in the REAL world, we don't do the '.10' version number crap.

For one thing, it kills alphabetical listings on our qa file server because sorting by name gives you:

10.1
10.10 <-- confusing placement since everything else is in chronological order
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.8
10.9

so organizing a list is a pain in the ass. Second, no matter how many times people on both sides scream and complain, you'll NEVER concvince either side that one system is better than another.

Bottom line: just never do it. Keep revision numbers between 0 and 9 and plan ahead.

Mike

goMac · Apr 2, 2005, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by starman:
Cool. I just DLed that from Apple's site. Off to burn and install!

Mike

I hate to break it to you, but I don't think the GM is available from any Apple site. As : cough : far as I'm aware, the GM build is not yet available through ADC or any or Apple seed service.

Jan Van Boghout · Apr 2, 2005, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by goMac:
I hate to break it to you, but I don't think the GM is available from any Apple site. As : cough : far as I'm aware, the GM build is not yet available through ADC or any or Apple seed service.

Yeah, methinks starman downloaded the 3-builds-before-GM

Edit: unless his membership is Premier and it gets him more. Which I hope isn't the case

piracy · Apr 2, 2005, 01:51 PM

This is the biggest load of sh*t I've ever seen.

First of all, you can't "plan ahead" to only have 9 point releases when your next release may be 18-24 months out.

Secondly, version numbers are not mathematical decimals. In other words, 10.1 != 10.10. In other words, sure, you might *like* to avoid having a .10, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with having .10, .11, .12, and so on.

(And lastly, "organizing a list" is about the most worthless reasoning I've ever seen as a lame excuse for why you can't have .10.)

Terrible. F.

Originally posted by starman:
It's not laziness at all. I don't know where you work, but in the REAL world, we don't do the '.10' version number crap.

For one thing, it kills alphabetical listings on our qa file server because sorting by name gives you:

10.1
10.10 <-- confusing placement since everything else is in chronological order
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.8
10.9

so organizing a list is a pain in the ass. Second, no matter how many times people on both sides scream and complain, you'll NEVER concvince either side that one system is better than another.

Bottom line: just never do it. Keep revision numbers between 0 and 9 and plan ahead.

Mike

starman · Apr 2, 2005, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by goMac:
I hate to break it to you, but I don't think the GM is available from any Apple site. As : cough : far as I'm aware, the GM build is not yet available through ADC or any or Apple seed service.

Ah, right. I got 425, not 428. Either way, it'll be up eventually. It always is.

It's still great to use. It won't be my main OS anyway since my main OS is on a 50GB partition and this one's my "test OS" partition.

Mike

Moose · Apr 2, 2005, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by starman:
For one thing, it kills alphabetical listings on our qa file server because sorting by name gives you:

10.1
10.10 <-- confusing placement since everything else is in chronological order
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.8
10.9

You don't use the Finder much, do you?

starman · Apr 2, 2005, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by piracy:
This is the biggest load of sh*t I've ever seen.

First of all, you can't "plan ahead" to only have 9 point releases when your next release may be 18-24 months out.

Secondly, version numbers are not mathematical decimals. In other words, 10.1 != 10.10. In other words, sure, you might *like* to avoid having a .10, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with having .10, .11, .12, and so on.

(And lastly, "organizing a list" is about the most worthless reasoning I've ever seen as a lame excuse for why you can't have .10.)

Terrible. F.

Hahah. Please don't apply to my company.

Mike

goMac · Apr 2, 2005, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by starman:
Ah, right. I got 425, not 428. Either way, it'll be up eventually. It always is.

It's still great to use. It won't be my main OS anyway since my main OS is on a 50GB partition and this one's my "test OS" partition.

Mike

Yeah, I've been trying to get out of a few people at Apple whether you could nicely update 425 to 428, or whether that would be required at all. So far no one will tell me.

Seems like you should be able to. Might even still work with SU and stuff.

starman · Apr 2, 2005, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Moose:
You don't use the Finder much, do you?

It's not just me. You have lots of different eyes on a file server, and everyone looks at things their own way.

Mike

starman · Apr 2, 2005, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by goMac:
Yeah, I've been trying to get out of a few people at Apple whether you could nicely update 425 to 428, or whether that would be required at all. So far no one will tell me.

Seems like you should be able to. Might even still work with SU and stuff.

I did get a "seed update". Hang on, I'll see what it says...

Checked. "Tiger Seed Update 3". Just adds a ReadMe.

Mike

Chuckit · Apr 2, 2005, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by Moose:
The dot determines significance of the digit (major, minor, maintenance, anal-retentive bugfix, etc.). By this logic, it shouldn't be 10.4.10, but it should be 1.4.1!

In decimal numbers, the number right of the decimal point is the same number no matter how many zeroes you add on the right, whereas the opposite is true on the left side of the decimal place. Irrationally applying this mathematical rule to version increments wouldn't lead to the conclusion that 10.4.10 = 1.4.1, since it's not true that 10.4 = 1.4, but it is true that 4.10 = 4.1.

wtmcgee · Apr 2, 2005, 02:14 PM

I can't believe after YEARS of OS X and Linux using this exact same version numbering scheme, people are still debating this. The numbers are merely release numbers, not a decimal number. 10.x.10 is the 10th revision of the 'x' major release. It's not rocket science, but some people seem to want to make it seem as though it is.

I swear I've seen this same argument 50 times on this forum alone.

piracy · Apr 2, 2005, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by goMac:
Yeah, I've been trying to get out of a few people at Apple whether you could nicely update 425 to 428, or whether that would be required at all. So far no one will tell me.

Seems like you should be able to. Might even still work with SU and stuff.

No, you most definitely will not be able to upgrade from 8A425 to 8A428 in a supported fashion. There's your answer.

Will you be able to physically install 8A428 over 8A425, and probably have everything work? Yes. Will it be supported? No.

piracy · Apr 2, 2005, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by starman:
Hahah. Please don't apply to my company.

Mike

I don't think there's any danger of that, thankfully.

goMac · Apr 2, 2005, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by piracy:
No, you most definitely will not be able to upgrade from 8A425 to 8A428 in a supported fashion. There's your answer.

Will you be able to physically install 8A428 over 8A425, and probably have everything work? Yes. Will it be supported? No.

Yes, we all know that.

But the two builds are VERY similar. Only small differences between the two. "Supported" and "Possible" are two different things.

starman · Apr 2, 2005, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by piracy:
I don't think there's any danger of that, thankfully.

Well, thank Christ for that. God knows we don't need someone arrogant who likes to piss about version numbers

Mike

piracy · 02:59 PM

Originally posted by goMac:
Yes, we all know that.

But the two builds are VERY similar. Only small differences between the two. "Supported" and "Possible" are two different things.

What did I just say?

Yes, it's possible. And Installer.app is designed to, in theory, install properly in this circumstance.

However, it is NOT SUPPORTED. I didn't say it wouldn't work, or wasn't "possible"; quite the opposite. However, for any sane, rational person - especially someone who wants their primary OS install to be reliable for some time to come - wouldn't it be wise to install a supported configuration, rather than one that could fail on some update or under some other set of circumstances in the future? There are a reason why things are called unsupported.

The only supported installations of Mac OS X 10.4 will be:

- Erase and install
- Archive and install
- Upgrade in place from 10.3.x or earlier

End of story.

All it takes is one file to be missed or improperly updated/removed from a prerelease version of 10.4 to the GM to break functionality, cause unexpected behavior, or break a future update.

He said he'd been trying to get someone to tell him. I told him. He now has the answer. Take it or leave it. And if he had half-a-brain, which appears doubtful, he'd install the final release version of 10.4 properly, instead of illegally bragging about ADC and other Apple-proprietary material on MacNN forums, which he's been doing for years now. Now that I'm not so busy, it might be time to report this to WWDR again...

kcmac · Apr 2, 2005, 03:00 PM

I would rather hear as much about Tiger as possible from those using builds of it vs. this on-going battle about a numbering system. Come on starman, without risking your neck, give us your impressions.

starman · Apr 2, 2005, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by piracy:
Now that I'm not so busy, it might be time to report this to WWDR again...

Ooh, TOUGH GUY.

I mean seriously, what are you going to do? Report to Apple that goMac was asking questions? As a developer, they're legit questions. Especially when you've been working on a pre-release version of the OS for so long, have all your settings and such. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to just "upgrade" to the final version instead of wiping out all your settings and starting from scratch? I do all my Tiger stuff on a separate partition but since I've spent 'X' number of months with that partition, I wouldn't want to go through all the setup again either.

Stop being such an arrogant jerk and be a little open-minded sometimes.

And go ahead and report goMac to Apple. If they didn't arrest the kid for distributing Tiger, I'm sure they won't say anything to goMac about asking if he can go from 425 to 428.

Mike

Person Man · Apr 2, 2005, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by kcmac:
I would rather hear as much about Tiger as possible from those using builds of it vs. this on-going battle about a numbering system. Come on starman, without risking your neck, give us your impressions.

NDA rules prohibit this. Besides, you don't want to base your opinion on a prerelease version, since that's not what you're going to have in your hands when you buy the actual release.

Moose · Apr 2, 2005, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by starman:
It's not just me. You have lots of different eyes on a file server, and everyone looks at things their own way.

If your developers are confused or troubled by the alphabetical order of .1 vs. .10, then your developers are retarded.

starman · Apr 2, 2005, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by Moose:
If your developers are confused or troubled by the alphabetical order of .1 vs. .10, then your developers are retarded.

And I guess our OEMs are as well, they're the ones that ask us not to do that also

Mike

Moose · Apr 2, 2005, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by starman:
And I guess our OEMs are as well, they're the ones that ask us not to do that also

That goes without saying.

Anybody anywhere who assumes version numbers, ESPECIALLY ONES THAT CONTAIN MORE THAN ONE DOT, follow the rules of decimal numbers needs a slap. A big, powerful, Marcellus Wallace bitchslap.

starman · Apr 2, 2005, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by Moose:
That goes without saying.

Anybody anywhere who assumes version numbers, ESPECIALLY ONES THAT CONTAIN MORE THAN ONE DOT, follow the rules of decimal numbers needs a slap. A big, powerful, Marcellus Wallace bitchslap.

Well then you take on the big companies yourself. Go to their lobbies and ask for the Version Number Managers. See how fast you get laughed at.

Mike

Chuckit · Apr 2, 2005, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by starman:
Well then you take on the big companies yourself. Go to their lobbies and ask for the Version Number Managers. See how fast you get laughed at.

It is completely self-evident that they are not ordinary decimal numbers, because decimal numbers can't have more than one decimal point.

Moreover, if you're going to be talking about "someone arrogant who likes to piss about version numbers," this is just funny.

piracy · 01:45 PM

As a developer, they're legit questions. Especially when you've been working on a pre-release version of the OS for so long, have all your settings and such. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to just "upgrade" to the final version instead of wiping out all your settings and starting from scratch? I do all my Tiger stuff on a separate partition but since I've spent 'X' number of months with that partition, I wouldn't want to go through all the setup again either.

Ever heard of Archive and Install?

Archive and Install is supported.

Since you're a highly skilled developer, one would assume that you'd know that, instead of making ridiculous suggestions about installing over pre-release OSes, when the QA and testing to make that a supported configuration would be extensive, when multiple installation options, including Archive and Install, are already supported.

Person Man · Apr 2, 2005, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by TETENAL:
However, we didn't see a Safari 1.3 update yet, which means Safari 2.0 is not yet finished and therefore neither is Tiger.

Just because a software project was in development and seeded to other developers (as Safari 1.3 was/is) does NOT mean that it has to eventually be released. Nor does it mean that if Apple decided to abandon development of 1.3 they have to publicly state that they abandoned it.

iOliverC · 05:09 AM

Originally posted by piracy:
Wow, you really are a mind-shattering dumbass, aren't you?

I'm talking about you. And I'm sure that between "Mike Gaines", a .Mac username of starman, and anyone who initiated AND completed downloading 8A425 before around 6AM PT from IP ranges in/around [insert your favorite city], [insert your favorite state], they won't have trouble figuring it out.

Ever heard of Archive and Install?

Archive and Install is supported.

Since you're a highly skilled developer, one would assume that you'd know that, instead of making ridiculous suggestions about installing over pre-release OSes, when the QA and testing to make that a supported configuration would be extensive, when multiple installation options, including Archive and Install, are already supported.

How about, not reporting him and getting on with your life?

piracy · Apr 2, 2005, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by iOliverC:
How about, not reporting him and getting on with your life?

How about he stops blatantly saying "OMG, JUST DOWNLOADED FROM ADC, OFF TO BURN AND INSTALL" and "OK, JUST BURNED (YOU KNOW, THE BUILD I JUST DOWNLOADED FROM ADC) AND INSTALLED, AND NOW I'M SUPER COOL" every time there's a new major version of OS X?

I mean, it's one thing for people to assume that a lot of people around here are probably ADC members. It's another to overtly and retardedly brag about it all the time, and at that, to do it sadly incorrectly (i.e., not even realizing which build is GM).

TETENAL · Apr 2, 2005, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by Person Man:
Just because a software project was in development and seeded to other developers (as Safari 1.3 was/is) does NOT mean that it has to eventually be released. Nor does it mean that if Apple decided to abandon development of 1.3 they have to publicly state that they abandoned it.

Apple didn't publicly state that they abandoned the development of Safari 1.3. But neither did they publicly state that Tiger is golden master. The lack of Safari 1.3 for all intents and purposes is conclusive proof that Tiger is not yet golden master.

piracy · Apr 2, 2005, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Apple didn't publicly state that they abandoned the development of Safari 1.3. But neither did they publicly state that Tiger is golden master. The lack of Safari 1.3 for all intents and purposes is conclusive proof that Tiger is not yet golden master.

You are, for all intents and purposes, completely wrong.

And, by the way, Safari 2.0 is indeed finished (obviously).

Stradlater · Apr 2, 2005, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Apple didn't publicly state that they abandoned the development of Safari 1.3. But neither did they publicly state that Tiger is golden master. The lack of Safari 1.3 for all intents and purposes is conclusive proof that Tiger is not yet golden master.

Meanwhile, this statement is conclusive proof that you're illogical.

Chuckit · Apr 2, 2005, 04:42 PM

Originally posted by piracy:
How about he stops blatantly saying "OMG, JUST DOWNLOADED FROM ADC, OFF TO BURN AND INSTALL" and "OK, JUST BURNED (YOU KNOW, THE BUILD I JUST DOWNLOADED FROM ADC) AND INSTALLED, AND NOW I'M SUPER COOL" every time there's a new major version of OS X?

I mean, it's one thing for people to assume that a lot of people around here are probably ADC members. It's another to overtly and retardedly brag about it all the time, and at that, to do it sadly incorrectly (i.e., not even realizing which build is GM).

I'm generally all for just moving on and not letting people bug you, but I think piracy has a point. Blatantly flouting ADC rules like this is bad for developers. If Apple gets the impression that their devs don't take the program seriously, there's a good chance they'll pull back on who they let get their hands on the software.

SubGeniux · 05:09 AM

Originally posted by piracy:
Wow, you really are a mind-shattering dumbass, aren't you?

I'm talking about you. And I'm sure that between "Mike Gaines", a .Mac username of starman, and anyone who initiated AND completed downloading 8A425 before around 6AM PT from IP ranges in/around [insert your favorite city], [insert your favorite state], they won't have trouble figuring it out.
.

Are you honestly so ****in' stupidly bored that you go out your way to say what you did above?

Tell me, what exactly have you contributed to this discussion apart from put-downs, snide remarks, and utterly useless information that most geeks already know?

SubGeniux · Apr 2, 2005, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by Chuckit:
I'm generally all for just moving on and not letting people bug you, but I think piracy has a point. Blatantly flouting ADC rules like this is bad for developers. If Apple gets the impression that their devs don't take the program seriously, there's a good chance they'll pull back on who they let get their hands on the software.

There's a way of saying it without coming across as a pr!ck. Also, if memory serves me right, it was piracy who jumped on starman in the first instance in regards to starman's fairly acurate assessment of marketng and software versioning.

Grow up, piracy.

piracy · 05:00 PM

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
There's a way of saying it without coming across as a pr!ck. Also, if memory serves me right, it was piracy who jumped on starman in the first instance in regards to starman's fairly acurate assessment of marketng and software versioning.

Grow up, piracy.

Actually, starman's assessment of software versioning was anything but accurate.

1. You cannot plan to only have 9 point releases for a major OS product that has a lifetime of 18-24 months, or longer.

2. In versioning, "1.2.1" != "1.2.10". That implies some relationship to decimal math that does not exist. Multi-digit point releases are perfectly acceptable. Whether or not they are desired in a perfect world is beside the point.

starman's assertions about version control, and the reasoning behind them (i.e. "plan ahead"...LOL!) are egregiously incorrect. On top of it, he overtly brags about Apple proprietary items that he obtains via ADC, which is a violation of the ADC terms.

Just a few example from the past:

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=122980
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=117800
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=117781
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=117847

And one of my favorites:

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=117082

"Who said 6C115 is final?"

LOL!

SubGeniux · Apr 2, 2005, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by piracy:
Actually, starman's assessment of software versioning was anything but accurate.

First of all, he was accurate in regards to avoiding going up to .10 releases. Software houses try to avoid that, even though we all know that no-one knows how far updates will go after a release.

Deal with it.

Chuckit · Apr 2, 2005, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
Tell me, what exactly have you contributed to this discussion apart from put-downs, snide remarks, and utterly useless information that most geeks already know?

Confirmation.

SubGeniux · Apr 2, 2005, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by Chuckit:
Confirmation.

What on earth are you lnking to? Confirmation of what? All I see is some guy who posts in the affirmative to someting that was said on other websites.

LOL, fcuk sake, do better than posting something we already know.

piracy · Apr 2, 2005, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
First of all, he was accurate in regards to avoiding going up to .10 releases. Software houses try to avoid that, even though we all know that no-one knows how far updates will go after a release.

Deal with it.

Yes, they try to avoid it. I even acknowledged that it's not desirable. But the world isn't a perfect place, and Mac OS X 10.4.10 is perfectly acceptable, if it comes to that.

SubGeniux · Apr 2, 2005, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by piracy:

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=122980
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=117800
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=117781
http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=117847

And one of my favorites:

Holy ****, you just proved my assertion was correct.

You friggin post things that are generally known, you alwas have, and you always probably will.

kcmac · Apr 2, 2005, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by Person Man:
NDA rules prohibit this. Besides, you don't want to base your opinion on a prerelease version, since that's not what you're going to have in your hands when you buy the actual release.

Yeah, I realize this. Should have hit the sarcasm button. Just trying to see if this thread could get back to something more interesting or civil than where it is at the moment.

piracy · Apr 2, 2005, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
Holy ****, you just proved my assertion was correct.

You friggin post things that are generally known, you alwas have, and you always probably will.

LOL!

Numerous others can (and will) attest to what was posted and when.

Some people just don't know what to do with accurate information.

SubGeniux · Apr 2, 2005, 05:07 PM

I find it ironic that piracy is running his gob of at starmamn about NDAs and so on (in regards to the buld number), and yet here we are boasting of how piracy posts info about future releaes of an OS that is surely under NDA.

Mind boggles.

I should give my brother a call at Apple, let him know that piracy is telluing everyone that a certain build is classed as GM.

Did I forget to mention that he works there? I'm sure we can find out who piracy is.

piracy · Apr 2, 2005, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by SubGeniux:
I find it ironic that piracy is running his gob of at starmamn about NDAs and so on (in regards to the buld number), and yet here we are boasting of how piracy posts info about future releaes of an OS that is surely under NDA.

Mind boggles.

I should give my brother a call at Apple, let him know that piracy is telluing everyone that a certain build is classed as GM.

Did I forget to mention that he works there? I'm sure we can find out who piracy is.

LOL!

I'm really sure you can't.

"

"