[ home | about | dec'04 | nov'04 | 2004 | 2003 | rss feed ]

news of 2005-04-28

ArsTechnica's Tiger Review

You can (and should) read it here. "Tiger includes updates that are at least twice as significant as any single past update."

[ written by fryke™ on 2005-04-28 at 23:52 CET ]
[ contact (e-mail) ] - [ story link ] - [ back to top ]

Version number thinking

Today's story about Apple being sued about the "Tiger" name reminded me of that, basically, I don't want code names to be official operating system names. What's wrong with calling 10.4 "Mac OS ten-four", anyway? And then I thought how in ye olde days, Apple jumped from 7.5 to 7.6 and then to 8, and from 8.1 to 8.5 etc. And that if Apple would've kept going with that scheme, 10.2 would've been 10.5 already, 10.3 would've been 10.6 and Tiger, erh, 10.4 would have been Mac OS 11.0. Either way: Is the name/number game really necessary? I believe it was Microsoft who started it, anyway. Windows 95, I believe. Should've been Windows 4 (bad number in China, I know...). But does Apple really need to call their OSs by their code names? I mean: We rumour-mongers always did that, even when Apple still thought of these code names as secret. We talked about Harmony (7.6), Copland (never-released System 8), Sonata (Mac OS 9), Rhapsody (Mac OS X Server pre 1.0 developer releases) and even about little updates with funny names like "buster" (Mac OS 7.5.3 Rev. 1) and "son of buster" (Mac OS 7.5.3, Rev. 2). But if Apple's doing it themselves, the fun's kinda lost. Also, since the code names now are suddenly a marketing instrument, they have to be cool - instead of being formed in the middle of the night by two extremely over-caffeined programmerboys (or -gals) who _think_ something's funny and later notice that it isn't. Either way: Here in Switzerland, the 29th of April starts in less than an hour. So let's just say: Mac OS X 10.4 is now, finally, here.

[ written by fryke™ on 2005-04-28 at 23:04 CET ]
[ contact (e-mail) ] - [ story link ] - [ back to top ]