On May 5, 2006, at 4:44 AM, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 03:41:48PM -0600, Chad Perrin wrote:
On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 01:04:42PM -0800, Elliott F. Cable wrote:
Mac OS X? Other way around - went from system 7, 8, OS 9 - then 10.1 (10), 10.2 (11), 10.3 (12), 10.4 (13) and soon, 10.5 (14) - I tend to find that copying something apple did leads to success, ESPECIALLY when they changed something - usually, when they admit they made a mistake (very rare) and fix it in a given way (much less rare) then they usually fix it 100%, and put lots of thought into their decision. I see the fact that they ended up using a X.YY system means we should stick to the same, but maybe that's just me.
The reason there's a 10.x anything is that MacOS X followed MacOS 9. They're dragging out the 10.x because of the association of 10 with X.
Indeed. And it's worth noting, too, that Elliot is apparently missing the fact that 7, 8, and 9 all had sub-version numbers, as well. So, no, 10.2 != 11.
I'm not missing the fact that the old OS had version numbers - Hehe I remember excitement at the updates (-:
I'm saying that the change from 10.1 to 10.2 is MORE than enough to qualify a major change - I should have specified more; let me re- write that: They switched from 7.x -> 8.x -> 9.x (snap!) 10.1.x -> 10.2.x -> 10.3.x -> 10.4.x and so on. And yes, I am aware that 7-9 had sub-sub versions also, I am just saying that their entire numbering system was A) reset to 1 B) moved one place to the right, and C) prefixed by 10. Make sense now? [-;