Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

ender999 · Mar 19, 2001, 10:15 PM

macwebmasters.com has a story with shots of the cd's in the box and and install on a g4, the get info shows 4k78. These are legit pictures you can see for yourself...
http://macwebmasters.com/ -- article
http://macwebmasters.com/osx/ -- pictures

c0rvette · Mar 19, 2001, 10:18 PM

Esos sitios no trabajan

ender999 · Mar 19, 2001, 10:23 PM

both links work fine for me.... no se que su problema es....

Ghoser777 · Mar 19, 2001, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by ender999:
macwebmasters.com has a story with shots of the cd's in the box and and install on a g4, the get info shows 4k78. These are legit pictures you can see for yourself...
http://macwebmasters.com/ -- article
http://macwebmasters.com/osx/ -- pictures

I highly doubt that they'd have the build number on the GM. The picturers of the box and CDs, I believe. The OSX screen shot i don't. It could easily by the developers release or an easy photoshop/plist editied screen picture,but not the GM. The screen shot isn't all that revealing anyway. I'll be happy if everyone just shuts up about the version number and latest snap shot for the next 5 days.

F-bacher

PowerBookDude · Mar 19, 2001, 10:28 PM

The picture links don't work

.

------------------
Ti 500/384/20/Airport
------------------
Pismo 500/256/12/Airport
------------------
iMac DV SE 400/128/12/Airport
------------------
iBook Blueberry 300/96/3/Airport

Geobunny · Mar 19, 2001, 10:29 PM

The shots of the box appeared LONG before they appeared with the two screenshots. Someone just trying to cash-in on someone else's find to get everyone here to believe the crap that is 4k78 == GM.

We'll find out soon enough

------------------
Shh! Be vewy, vewy qwiewet! I'm hunting wuntime ewwors

rsanford · Mar 19, 2001, 10:33 PM

ender999, I can't help but be suspicious that you are the owner of the posted website, and this is a ploy to get some hits.

ender999 · Mar 19, 2001, 10:33 PM

I know the guys that took the screenshots. The photos of the about this mac taken on a box after the discs pictured were installed on a g4. If you don't believe me, go plug "Mac OS X CD Retail.image" into hotlinehq.com, find a server, download the disc and install it yourself. The retail image photoed is floating around several servers by now, and it 565.9 megs in size.

niko · Mar 19, 2001, 10:33 PM

What a load of crap!

PowerBookDude · Mar 19, 2001, 10:37 PM

Originally posted by ender999:
I know the guys that took the screenshots. The photos of the about this mac taken on a box after the discs pictured were installed on a g4. If you don't believe me, go plug "Mac OS X CD Retail.image" into hotlinehq.com, find a server, download the disc and install it yourself. The retail image photoed is floating around several servers by now, and it 565.9 megs in size.

Could you tell who ever took the screenshots to fix the picture links.

------------------
Ti 500/384/20/Airport
------------------
Pismo 500/256/12/Airport
------------------
iMac DV SE 400/128/12/Airport
------------------
iBook Blueberry 300/96/3/Airport

The Evener · Mar 19, 2001, 10:45 PM

???

Those shots of the retail box are from a Swedish web site.
http://www.macnytt.com/bilder/nyhets...ldoutofbox.jpg
http://www.macnytt.com/bilder/nyhets...xretailcds.jpg
http://www.macnytt.com/bilder/nyhets...x/inthebox.jpg
http://www.macnytt.com/bilder/nyhets.../mosx/back.jpg

The author of the article just pulled them off that web server.

Ghoser777 · Mar 19, 2001, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by ender999:
I know the guys that took the screenshots. The photos of the about this mac taken on a box after the discs pictured were installed on a g4. If you don't believe me, go plug "Mac OS X CD Retail.image" into hotlinehq.com, find a server, download the disc and install it yourself. The retail image photoed is floating around several servers by now, and it 565.9 megs in size.

Hmmm... strangely enough that is the same size as the developer PRE release. Hmmmm....

F-bacher

Mar 19, 2001, 10:54 PM

I can confirm that the "Final Candidate" build released to students is, in fact, Build 4K78. It's right in the About box.

However, I do not think that this is the GM, and certainly not Final. It's already known that "real" developers got a build called "Golden Master." Typically, in the software development process, GM comes after Final Candidates.

Why would Apple release an earlier build to students? Probably because they knew the students would be falling all over themselves to be the ones to leak the Golden Master. So they gave them a build that's close to Final, but which they know is already out on warez servers to protect the students (not to mention their own intellectual property) from the lure of 1337ness.

Ghoser777 · Mar 19, 2001, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by The Evener:
???

Those shots of the retail box are from a Swedish web site.
http://www.macnytt.com/bilder/nyhets...ldoutofbox.jpg
http://www.macnytt.com/bilder/nyhets...xretailcds.jpg
http://www.macnytt.com/bilder/nyhets...x/inthebox.jpg
http://www.macnytt.com/bilder/nyhets.../mosx/back.jpg

The author of the article just pulled them off that web server.

And what an up-to-date site too. It hasn't been updated in 2 MONTHS (previous last post Jan 9th 2001). That's worse than appleinsider.

F-bacher

Ghoser777 · Mar 19, 2001, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by Anonymous:
I can confirm that the "Final Candidate" build released to students is, in fact, Build 4K78. It's right in the About box.

However, I do not think that this is the GM, and certainly not Final. It's already known that "real" developers got a build called "Golden Master." Typically, in the software development process, GM comes after Final Candidates.

Why would Apple release an earlier build to students? Probably because they knew the students would be falling all over themselves to be the ones to leak the Golden Master. So they gave them a build that's close to Final, but which they know is already out on warez servers to protect the students (not to mention their own intellectual property) from the lure of 1337ness.

WARNING!!! You have know violated ur NDA and will have ur brains sucked out of your head by Steve Jobs himself for releasing the build number of the student release. I guess the "Confidential" type on the CD wasn't in a big enough font for u to see it.

Here's the deal people: There's been pre-releases to developers being passed off as GM's. No one will know what the true GM is until March 24th. Get ovet it.

F-bacher

Ghoser777 · Mar 19, 2001, 11:00 PM

Originally posted by rsanford:
ender999, I can't help but be suspicious that you are the owner of the posted website, and this is a ploy to get some hits.

Hmmm... and his only contributions to the forums have come in this thread. I hope Moderators close all such threads so i can read useful stuff like how to make my dock minimizations do carpet roll-ups like in Aladin.

F-bacher

Mac Guru · Mar 19, 2001, 11:58 PM

Hahahahahahaha! That's a good one!

I can't help but see the DRASTIC differences in the quality in those images that by any other means should have been the same image quality. The photo's of the boxes and CD's are high quality, clean and crisp, and the photo's of the Screen and G4 are a LOT different looking... darker and more muddy.

I don't buy it no matter HOW much you say you know the photographer. I saw those box shots elsewhere WAY before those popped up.

Mac Guru

------------------
Even though Mac Users may be only 10% of the market, always remember that we are the TOP 10%"

JayJay1974 · Mar 20, 2001, 09:34 AM

For real proof, I want to see the disks, packaging and the about box in the one photo. All I see are separate photos. Taken out of context, they mean nothing!

Misha · Mar 20, 2001, 09:57 AM

Not to mention that the photo of the fold-out front of the box is mislabeled "back of the box."

I was going to close this thread, but I figure I'll keep it open if only so that you all can further belittle this poser.

PowerBookDude · Mar 20, 2001, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by Mac Guru:
Hahahahahahaha! That's a good one!

I can't help but see the DRASTIC differences in the quality in those images that by any other means should have been the same image quality. The photo's of the boxes and CD's are high quality, clean and crisp, and the photo's of the Screen and G4 are a LOT different looking... darker and more muddy.

I don't buy it no matter HOW much you say you know the photographer. I saw those box shots elsewhere WAY before those popped up.

Mac Guru

Mac Guru I like your sig.

------------------
Ti 500/384/20/Airport
------------------
Pismo 500/256/12/Airport
------------------
iMac DV SE 400/128/12/Airport
------------------
iBook Blueberry 300/96/3/Airport

waffffffle · Mar 20, 2001, 10:14 AM

Excuse me guys, since I haven't gone into this forum for a few months, but why would someone even want to fake pictures? What would anyone have to gain? I just dont get it.

Milio · Mar 20, 2001, 10:17 AM

Because it's fun to prey upon the weak-minded.

Rave · Mar 20, 2001, 10:18 AM

Talk about fake pics, what's up with that iMac on the front of the old imac2day.com web site?
Does it look a bit strange to anyone else?

JLL · Mar 20, 2001, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by Rave:
Talk about fake pics, what's up with that iMac on the front of the old imac2day.com web site?
Does it look a bit strange to anyone else?

I hope you're kidding because that's just the original iMac.

JLL

Mar 20, 2001, 02:21 PM

I saw the Swedish pictures yesterday and first thought, "Yup, sure that looks like a box of OSX alright...must be the real thang."

But after Kosmo's post, and a closer look at the box, can anybody find a UPC symbol on it? Or any of the other necessary drivel that gets put on a software box? Apple has always had a sparse design ethic when it comes to packaging, but it looks "ideal" sparse to me; i.e. this is a non-retail/display box.

Not proof of anything, but just a thought.

ender999 · Mar 21, 2001, 03:28 AM

FIrst of all, the UPC is on the bottom of the box, and every copy of OS 9 retail comes with all three disks picured, yes dev tools are in every box. It's interesting to see how doubtful all of you are. Do you someone will skills would actually take the time to fake all the pics? To all the cynics out there, get all your half wit pee brains together and come up with a consensus (Don't forget to get the moderator involded too) and let me know what it would take to prove the pics. You want a pic of the retail disk in a drive, or all the disks plus the about this mac and a copy of todays LA times, whatever. Just enough to shut all of you up for once & for all. Then, I'll have my source shoot the photo and post the URL here. After you beat up the potential for fraud in that pic, OS-X will be out, and you can all shell out 129.00 to find out I was right all along, and you wasted countless units of emotional energy because you doubted me.

ender999 · Mar 21, 2001, 03:30 AM

Oh Yeah, about the sweedish site, those were downloaded off a hotline server that my source uploaded them too. He also submitted them to macwebmaters, which published them after compressing them.

ender999 · Mar 24, 2001, 02:17 PM

Just thought I'd gloat a little over the fact that I WAS RIGHT, and all you cynics were wrong.

Joe Cool · Mar 24, 2001, 02:19 PM

Apple posted a TIL article talking about 4k78 is the final search under Mac OS X 10.0 you will see it.

hmr · Mar 24, 2001, 02:41 PM

4k78 = 10.0 http://til.info.apple.com/techinfo.nsf/artnum/n106176

Millennium · Mar 24, 2001, 02:47 PM

Actually, Ender, we were both right.

The build number is, in fact, 4K78. However, quite a few files are different between the builds. You can verify this, as I did, by installing Retail over RC or GM or the "original" 4K78 or whatever. While no differences are immediately visible, many files ARE changed, and system performance is altered (in my case, the GUI seems somewhat more responsive, but app launching times have gone up slightly).

So we both come out correct. It is 4K78, as you claimed. But it is not the same 4K78 that was seeded to developers.

Mar 24, 2001, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Mac Guru:
Hahahahahahaha! That's a good one!

I can't help but see the DRASTIC differences in the quality in those images that by any other means should have been the same image quality. The photo's of the boxes and CD's are high quality, clean and crisp, and the photo's of the Screen and G4 are a LOT different looking... darker and more muddy.

I don't buy it no matter HOW much you say you know the photographer. I saw those box shots elsewhere WAY before those popped up.

Mac Guru

you guys are idiots.. there is even an apple TIL article that says K78 IS EQUAL TO THE RETAIL VERSION

Mar 24, 2001, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by Millennium:
Actually, Ender, we were both right.

The build number is, in fact, 4K78. However, quite a few files are different between the builds. You can verify this, as I did, by installing Retail over RC or GM or the "original" 4K78 or whatever. While no differences are immediately visible, many files ARE changed, and system performance is altered (in my case, the GUI seems somewhat more responsive, but app launching times have gone up slightly).

So we both come out correct. It is 4K78, as you claimed. But it is not the same 4K78 that was seeded to developers.

nope.. look at the checksum fotr both copies.. they are exactly the same.. meaning the disks are the same bit for bit....

Millennium · Mar 24, 2001, 04:49 PM

That's funny... my checksums are quite different.

And even if they were the same, that wouldn't mean they were identical. It's possible to make two different files have the same checksum; in fact that's a common trick hackers use to cover their tracks. What you can't do is have two files of the same size with the same checksum, but since I'm seeing different sizes here as well, that point is moot.

In short, it's a 4K78 build all right, but it's not the same 4K78.