Richard Gilmore wrote: > > This is nit picking but is anyone else bothered by the update numbering > system? The sequence went 10.4.1 to 10.4.9 then now 10.4.10 > > But mathematically 10.4.1 and 10.4.10 are the same amount. "Amount?" A Version number is not an amount, in terms of it being a decimal number, as it doesn't represent a mathematical value. It's simply a sequence of numbers that steps up another digit in the last place after the rightmost period. > They have the > same value. The zero is redundant. But they are different updates. Can’t > they use a letter or something until Leopard arrives? Or could they use > another numbering sequence? Maybe 10.4.91? > > Small thing that bothers me. > > Richard keith whaley