# Remember Kids 5g64 Nor 5g68 Are Final Releases!



## theCaptain (Sep 26, 2001)

I have seen many posts in recent days where people seem to think 5g64 is the gold master build.  In fact 5G68 is the GM but regardless of all of this, Mac OS 10.1 is the shipping version of OS X that was just released, not 5G68.  Why is this, it is because 5G68 was the last build released to developers.  OS X.1 was finished with internal testing.  If you want the final version get the X.1 cd.


----------



## mrjinglesusa (Sep 26, 2001)

A)  How do you know 5G68 was the last build released to developers?
B)  Even the final version will have a build number.  Click on About this Macintosh and then click where it says "Mac OS 10.1"  It will then tell you the build number.  Mine is 5G64.


----------



## kernel_panic (Sep 26, 2001)

> _Originally posted by theCaptain _
> *I have seen many posts in recent days where people seem to think 5g64 is the gold master build.  In fact 5G68 is the GM but regardless of all of this, Mac OS 10.1 is the shipping version of OS X that was just released, not 5G68.  Why is this, it is because 5G68 was the last build released to developers.  OS X.1 was finished with internal testing.  If you want the final version get the X.1 cd. *



And how do you explain this post on the Apple Carbon Development mailing list archive?

Is Apple lying to it's developers for some reason?


----------



## LordOphidian (Sep 26, 2001)

Not to mention the fact that if you click on the 10.1 in About This Mac, it says 5G64.


----------



## SCrossman (Sep 26, 2001)

I am glad I have 5G64 now, as the real thing ordered through the Apple OS up-to-date program won't be here for God knows how long. If it gets better than this, great!

Well kernel_panic had the proof in his above post with the link to the apple dev-list.


----------



## theCaptain (Sep 26, 2001)

Maybe im retarded but I have read about a lot of people using 5G68 as the final build.  Check Macosx.org this is where im getting most of my argument off of.  I have just heard a lot about internal seeding.


----------



## CrazyMac (Sep 26, 2001)

I just got back from SeyboldSF. Were Apple was handing out the update. I just installed it on my TiG4 and the is what it says
Welcome to Darwin!
[localhost:~] don% sw_vers
ProductName:    Mac OS X
ProductVersion: 10.1
BuildVersion:   5G64
[localhost:~] don%


----------



## GrBear (Sep 26, 2001)

Seriously people this is just as childish as all the flame wars over the build number of first release of OS X 10.0.0..

Are we really going to rehash this all over again?


----------



## ksv (Sep 27, 2001)

Well, it's not hard to modify OS X to tell the user that it's build 5G68 instead of 5G64, so this could be the case. Or, it could really exist, but only available to selected AppleSeed members. I don't know...


----------



## vic (Sep 27, 2001)

actually i believe the thing with the internal seeding, i have 64, but it has childish bugs that are simnple to erase, i'm shure the store 64 is different than adc 64.


----------



## ulrik (Sep 27, 2001)

yes, and when you hit "Abbout this Mac" in the Seybold release, it says 5G68. Regardless of that, he is right. There is a difference between the developer version (and don't forget, all the version we have talked about are developers versions which where never released for the public) 5G68 and the final release. If you want a list of differences between 5G68 developers preview and the final GM, just send me a private eMail and I will send you a looooong list with very unimportant things which differ.


----------



## besson3c (Sep 27, 2001)

Ulrik:

think you could post that list in here?


----------



## serpicolugnut (Sep 27, 2001)

Yeah, I'd like to see that list too....


----------



## vic (Sep 27, 2001)

finally someone cleared my doubts. it seems i'm gonna ask my boss to get the store 10.1 and bedone with that!


----------



## krug (Sep 27, 2001)

So my question now is this:

I have already ordered the 10.1 update from Apple. If I install the 5G64 build now (already downloaded and burned), will I be able to upgrade again with the CD I get in the mail to resolve whatever minor differences there may be between the two, or will the release CD complain that I already have 10.1 installed and refuse to work?


----------



## vic (Sep 27, 2001)

how would anyone know unless they travelled to the future and back, but my predicament is that yes you will, as i've doen that myself with the adc version


----------



## CrazyMac (Sep 27, 2001)

As for people saying that they saw 5G68 at Seybold. Must of been seeing something that I was not, because every mac I checked it said 5G64. I checked alot of them. If you goto "About this Mac" to check it will only say 10.1. I used the terminal to check by typing sw_vers and I got 5G64.


----------



## piracy (Sep 27, 2001)

I literally cannot believe I am seeing this thread. It just blew my mind. I kept reading and reading thinking someone was going to set the original poster straight, and it never happened!

This brings back ugly memories of deja vu from the whole Mac OS X 10.0 (4K78) fiasco.

I'm going to say this once, and once only: there is only one build of Mac OS X 10.1, and it's build 5G64. There are no newer builds. Not even for a potential update to 10.1. There is no 5G68, and never was. There is no 5G70. There are no builds beyond 5G64, anywhere, and you can take that to the bank. There are also not multiple 5G64's. There's one and one only, and there's no difference whatsoever between what was given out at Seybold, what ADC got online, what ADC will get in the mail, and what you'll get if you get the official CD from Apple. It's all 5G64, and it's all the same. I don't know how much more simply or explicity to put it.

The whole purpose of build numbers is to have a unique identifier for a build, for a multitude of reasons. It would not make any sense to have different versions of the same build; that defeats the very purpose of a build number. If ANYTHING changes, by very definition, it has to be a new build. It's as simple as that. Also, Apple had multiple GM candidates before arriving at the final GM candidate that was accepted as GM (5G64). There were no builds run after this, and none were ever started. There was never even a 5G65. You can believe what you want, but it's the truth.

Back with the whole 4K78 deal, a lot of people wouldn't believe that the shipping 10.0 was 4K78. They swore up and down that there MUST be newer builds; their friend/neighbor/dog had SEEN them...in fact they must be in the 4K90's by now! But, alas, it was 4K78. When it became clearer and clearer that 4K78 was 10.0 GM, people couldn't take it. They said, "Maybe Steve has a secret stash of the real 10.0!" But then when it shipped on March 24, and they got their own hands on it and installed it, they still couldn't believe it. They saw 4K78 in the about box, and didn't know what to do. So they started making stuff up. Things like "there must be multiple 4K78's...maybe even dozens" or "well the developer 4K78 has all the debug code in it, and the real 4K78 is recompiled to make it super-lucky fast". Unfortunately, that's all wrong. The developer 4K78 and the retail 4K78 were identical. Byte for byte. Bit for bit. In every way. We even ran checksums on them, including md5 (a checksum for comparison of files with no known way of defeating it). Identical. People still wouldn't believe it. To this day, there's still some people who believe that the retail 4K78 is somehow faster. Well, I guess they can think whatever they want, if it makes them feel better.

So if it makes you feel better to think there's multiple 5G64's, or that there's secret builds out there (like 5G68 and other things that don't exist and never have), feel free. Just as long as you don't mind being completely, totally, 100% wrong.

So...one more time:

There is only one 5G64*

There are no builds higher than 5G64, anywhere**

No one has build 5G68


* Note: there *are* two different versions of the 5G64 CD: an updater and a full install. The update CD checks if you have a previous X installation and the full install will be in the retail box and with machines. But there's still no difference between the builds of 5G64. It's a unique identifier that will never change.

** Note 2: Before anyone says "well that's rediculous...maybe 5G64 is 10.1 like you say, but certainly there's builds newer than 5G64!" Nope. Not right now. In the build series which culminated in 5G64 (10.1 GM), there are no newer builds. And everyone who worked feverishly on it at Apple is taking a well-deserved break.


----------



## BBenve (Sep 27, 2001)

Point one as Steeve said no one is taking a break form anything!!!!
Point 2 ..it happens that i have G68... and it is not just a number that is changed.. it might not be the one in the cd it might be another candidate...but IT's REAL either you wanna believe or not my friend


----------



## piracy (Sep 27, 2001)

"As Steve said"? Uh, 10.1's done. It was 5G64. They don't just keep creating new builds *after* a GM candidate is accepted as GM! Do you know how much work it takes to run a build? There were builds DAILY toward the end, and they STOPPED at 5G64. They stopped, because 5G64 was accepted as GM. That's it. Done. The rush is over. People are taking it easy for a few days. Trust me.

Have fun with your fantasy build. Maybe you can teach the tooth fairy to use it too.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Sep 27, 2001)

To the people who have 5G68...

Let's see the proof....


----------



## walrusjb (Sep 27, 2001)

Glad to see you spreading wisdom over here, too.  

I actually had my doubts, but you've never been wrong - at least not that I've ever seen.

Which all makes me a bit bummed about G64... it's one of those "close but no cigar" builds... the bugs take a while to find but they're there - so I move from anxiously awaiting 10.1 to anxiously awaiting bugfix 10.1.1

Thanks for the input... even though it broke my hopes for a slightly better build on Saturday.


----------



## piracy (Sep 27, 2001)

Hello walrus.

10.1's an amazing update that hundreds of people worked very hard on. It's still got issues, but look at it compared to 10.0.x! Now that 10.1 is done, Apple can indeed concentrate on more minor things, tweaking, and adding more fun stuff over time. I think over the next few months, you'll be very happy with OS X. 10.1 will be updated, more and more native apps will continue to appear, and classic will be a thing of the past.

Here's to a great future with OS X.


----------



## Abakadoosh (Sep 28, 2001)

> Here's to a great future with OS X.



i'll drink to that


----------



## buggs1a (Sep 28, 2001)

classic is by far from over. it will take years to make the transition to os x 100%. my guess is 2002 at earliest or 2003.

when all apps are being made for x and not 9 anymore, even shareware, then 9 will die. this will take years in my opinion.

if apple takes a break right now, i would give them 7-10 days off in a row. and also add to their saleries 5% per year. They deserve it and need a major break. they also deserve every penny they are getting paid. os x is kinda cool right now, but in time it will be totally awesome. so they need a break and i hope they get it.

i just wish they used a couple OC12 lines and servers galore to make it downloadable. 10.1.
oh well.


----------



## walrusjb (Sep 28, 2001)

Piracy,

Don't get me wrong - I switched over to Mac to use OS X and I love it already.  My point was that those easy to fix bugs just didn't make it in the cuttof window for September, and I was holding out hope that a "G68" existed...

Cest la Vie - I can wait 6 more weeks for irksome bugs.


----------



## sfish (Sep 28, 2001)

walrusjb,

What bugs are you running into?  I'm still waiting for my copy of the upgrade disc (camping out at Fry's tomorrow  ) and wanted to know if there are any show-stoppers in the build.

BTW: Can anyone with 10.1 final installed confirm that hardware-based DVD isn't supported.  If so, can anyone with insider info at Apple let us know WHY and if it will be supported in a later release?


----------



## walrusjb (Sep 28, 2001)

Biggest one I've hit (and maybe this was planned - someone more knowledgeable jump in here) is that on a TiBook, running Classic applications (in my case Entourage, in a friend's case, some 3D app, maybe Lightwave?) have no effect on the system NOT going to sleep.  If that doesn't make sense - under 10.0.4 I could leave Entourage on a schedule to check my mail every 5 minutes, and set system sleep to 10 minutes of inactivity.  That way, it would never go to sleep unless I shut down Entourage.  Now, I have to set the system to go to "never" sleep to get the same effect - regardless of wether or not it's in a network operation or not.

Not a big deal for me, but my friend left a render running overnight as usual, and came back to it the next morning 5 minutes into the render + waking back up 

Major "logout" and "shutdown" problems that I'm trying to reproduce so I'll know what's doing it (don't know if it's a classic app, etc. causing) - essentially I tell the machine to shutdown or restart and it only kills the dock and finder and turns them right back on.  I have to tell it to shutdown, let it sit on the bluescreen for a minute (if it gets there) and hold down the power button through the question cycle until it turns off.  This is not a constant thing - why I'm so confused as to what's cuasing it, but I'm keeping my eyes open for a cure.

I had heard that Classic Apps would save to the same OS X desktop and not the os9 desktop as before, but this has not prooved the case for me.  Don't know if this was a true feature or not.

And the all-important networking.  Getting a lot of "unexpectedly disconnected" occourences - this is going through the Samba connect (yes, it does work folks... but your Win98 boxes don't support SMB protocol out of the box... try NT or 2K) as well as Apple Talk...  

To answer the obligatory questions - this was a clean install (VERY clean - wrote zeros and re-installed OS9 + classic apps before 10.0 then 10.1) - even flashed PRAM at one point to clear up some issues... 

OH OH - biggest one that happens all the time + BUGS me.  Using a USB mouse attached to the TiBook... optical mouse.  If I let the mouse sit for a while and type (it will do it when I move it in a moment, guaranteed), then go to move to to the top-left (think NW), it moves SE, or bottom-right - UNTIL i lift it from the table and move it again.  That one is getting OLD, and I've tested the mouse on another computer + know it's not the hardware...

Either way, I'll go get the offical installer tomorrow and re-install the X partition not becasue I think it's a newer version, but I have no idea if this version has been tampered with now and I want to be sure these are real bugs and not germane only to this Image.

(yep - just moved mouse to correct a spelling error and went SE on me   DAMMIT)


Peace + all    -jb


----------



## mrjinglesusa (Sep 28, 2001)

"5G64 is the release version: We have also received word that the release version of Mac OS X 10.1 is the same as the 5G64 build that was previously seeded to developers."


----------



## LordOphidian (Sep 28, 2001)

Just to clarify though, there will be more 5xxx builds, but they will be the 10.1.x builds.  Also It should start at 5Hxx since a milestone (the GM) was reached.  These builds will probalby be slow in comming though since the 5 seriese was marked stable, they will only be bug fixes.

To all of you who have 5G68, where did you get it from because its not hard to change the build numbers, someone could have just changed the build number to make you feel special.


----------



## FireWire (Sep 28, 2001)

Because you are using Classic mode for entourage. Go into the Classic Control Panels > energy saver. Click on the advanced options tab, and check "wake for network activity". That may solve your sleep issue. 

I use an intllemouse explorer and have had the jumpy optical mouse issue in OS 9 and X. I have also got the same issue on Windows machines.

To me these issues seem trivial. A microsoft app (not carbonized) running in classic that doesn't keep the machine awake seems very minor. And the mouse issue is not a isolated one, it is a known problem with many os's. Wait until the OS X version of Entourage is out, learn to use the trackpad, and enjoy "The Worlds Most Advanced Operating System"

Peace,

Tim
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.saltedwound.com


----------



## walrusjb (Sep 28, 2001)

Would say your were right on Classic network operation preferences if you were   Already set that.  For the record, this isn't just Entourage, and it DID NOT occour under Ent. or my friend's 3D app in 10.0.4 - these are new occourences with G64

Same scenario as above - just change all occourences of "app" with "mouse" - same mouse exhibited none of these irregularities under 10.0.4.  This is new, too.

I'm not saying that they aren't "trivial" bugs - but with all the steam that's been pumped into 10.1 I was simply suprised to find ANY bugs.  G64 is a HUGE advance over 4Q12 - but you're kidding yourself if you think it's bug-free and continue to wave the "it's MS's" or some 3rd party's fault flag... there ARE bugs.  Hence I wait now for 10.1.1


----------



## jimr (Sep 28, 2001)

> _Originally posted by buggs1a _
> *classic is by far from over. it will take years to make the transition to os x 100%. my guess is 2002 at earliest or 2003.
> 
> *



If you go back into archives and read the game plan,  Classic has a three year life expectancy.  In that time you will expect to see some minor upgrades to 9.1 but as with 9.2 already upgrades have appeared which shouldn't be put on other than OSX compatible machines.

In the meantime, software developers may tweak there software a bit as well for classic, but it would be crazy to develop another relase version for OS 8.6 and above.

In that time, the die-hards will come still slowly.  I know there are still some companies who refused to change from windows 3.1.  Big software investments...
especially with the pricing structures of the early 90's.

Anyway, everybody should do what they like but stop whining so much...


----------



## oldmac (Sep 28, 2001)

I got a 10.1 update CD on Friday afternoon (the real thing in the Apple wrapping, not a download, not a copy, etc.), and it is G64 release! Guaranteed! I work for an Apple Specialist.


----------



## walrusjb (Sep 30, 2001)

Grabbed the official upgrade package yesterday like a good soldier.  Just as an offshoot chance, even though I was running a downloaded G64 release, I installed the official package to see if any of the problems I was having (see above posts) went away.

They did 

Mouse is running like a champ, classic is obeying laws of energy + rest.  I think I DID come across a mislabeled G64 (a G58 re-labeled to spur downloads?)out there in the ether - because I've been running this one for a full night now and have yet ot hit any of the bugs I hit last week.  (will have to keep my eyes open for that Logout/Shutdown thing - that was sporadic)

SO - as a word of caution - know your source when getting G64.  I won't go so far as to say that there are two versions of G64 {grin}... but I don't think the other one I got from an image is actually it.

So far, I haven't seen anything... tight tight tight.  Connecting to shares, as others have said, is a dogged process - not as snappy as Q12, but it doesn't seem to drop the shares (unexpectedly lost connection) as much as Q12 - but this is only a night's worth of usage so I'll have to watch this one as well.


----------



## vic (Sep 30, 2001)

true true

in the previous 64 i had i could not install any drivers (no printing for me), or get php working, now, drivers are there, and i still have to test php, but i have a feeling it will be there.


----------

