Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

drissa · Jan 11, 2003, 05:30 AM

OS X's stability sometimes seems irrelevant: Internet Explorer seems to go all cooky on me fairly regularly. Often, when opening the browser, it stalls and tells me that I need to verify internet settings/connection problems, etc.

It's never all that bad, because eventually it settles and connects just fine. It's the fact that it goes on trying for a few minutes and keeps burping-up alert boxes that I find a bit childish.

I have an ADSL connection via an ethernet modem, 10.1.3, I/E 5.1. Just tell me it's one of those things and I'll be happy.

Merci

kovacs · Jan 11, 2003, 05:54 AM

Download the latest version of IE
Download IE 5.2.2

Or better download Safari Apple's latest browser
Download Safari

TheIceMan · Jan 11, 2003, 05:57 AM

Mon ami drissa: It is one of those things, but it's only because IE was not well ported to the Mac. Right now, it seems users on this forum are split in different "browser camps," IE, Chimera, Safari, OmniWeb, iCab, and Mozilla/Netscape.

First: upgrade to Jaguar 10.2.3
Second: upgrade to IE 5.2.2
Third: Please consider SWITCHING and try out Safari.
I think you may like it much more. If you haven't seen it check it out here at Apple.
Fourth: If you don't like that try Chimera.

I think upgrading to the most recent version of Jaguar and any of the other software applications will result in more stability and less "burping-up" for you. Good luck.

sushiism · Jan 11, 2003, 05:58 AM

This "stability" your talking opf sounds more of a problem with your connection than ie's actual stability.
But in answer to "what use is osx's stability if the programs are wobbly" well lots, programs dont actually bring down your system which is really great

Ron Goodman · Jan 11, 2003, 09:02 AM

Ditch IE and get the Safari or the latest Chimera if you're nervous about beta software. Who cares why IE crashes.

Millennium · Jan 11, 2003, 09:46 AM

Apple doesn't write IE, and sadly, doesn't really have any control over the quality of Microsoft's code.

Back in my OS9-zealot days, I even came up with an argument like this against such things as memory protection (which OSX now features): it would lead to more slovenly programming and poorer QA, because since programs couldn't crash the system anymore a little more wobbliness would be considered "acceptable".

While I was wrong in most aspects of my outlook on operating systems in those times, it seems that even in just the two years since OSX came out, my fears in that area have come true. It had already neeb well-known that programs with Mac ports were better-tested and more robust even on other platforms, precisely because crashes in MacOS were more dire. But now, many OSX apps are just as fragile as they are on other platforms. It's really quite a shame. The one drawback to OSX's stability is that testers are getting much lazier.

drissa · Jan 11, 2003, 11:45 AM

Interesting stuff - thanks folks.

The problem may well be my connection, not I/E. All the variable hurdles frighten newbies like myself, but I'm sure I'll get into the swing of things. Will check out Safari too.

moki · Jan 11, 2003, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by Millennium:
Back in my OS9-zealot days, I even came up with an argument like this against such things as memory protection (which OSX now features): it would lead to more slovenly programming and poorer QA, because since programs couldn't crash the system anymore a little more wobbliness would be considered "acceptable".

While I was wrong in most aspects of my outlook on operating systems in those times, it seems that even in just the two years since OSX came out, my fears in that area have come true.

I'll have to beg to differ here... when we were first transitioning to OS X, we still did quite a bit of work in OS 9, but we used OS X for testing/debugging our programs.

Why? Two reasons. First, a crash in the program under OS X didn't mean a length reboot, which meant we were more willing to test.

Second, things like random memory reads/writes that occasionally would crash under OS 9 will crash every time under OS X, because of protected memory. This is a good thing -- if we can reproduce a bug, we can fix it.

There have certainly been a lot of crappy ports to Mac OS X. I think you can chalk that up to a number of companies only supporting the Mac so much. When they were asked to write to a new OS, they put in their least-possible work effort.

Memory protection is a wonderful thing for debugging; I don't think that has anything to do with it. The 3% marketshare does.

gorgonzola · Jan 11, 2003, 01:21 PM

Bad ports have to do with the 3% marketshare, for one - I agree with moki on that.

My 2�, however, is that OS X's stability is useful anyway, since it's still much quicker to restart an app than it is to reboot and then relaunch *all* your apps. In addition, you only lose work in one app, not all of them.

That said, maybe I'm just using a very limited number of apps, but I've had very good experiences with app stability in X. The worst app stability-wise (by FAR) that I really use from time to time is Duality, but unfortunately there isn't really an alternative. Luckily, a theme is mostly a 'set it and forget it' kind of thing.

Millennium · Jan 11, 2003, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by moki:
I'll have to beg to differ here... when we were first transitioning to OS X, we still did quite a bit of work in OS 9, but we used OS X for testing/debugging our programs.

Indeed, and that's commendable. But the more programs I see in general, the more you guys seem to be the exception, rather than the rule. Perhaps that's because you've been all-Mac from the beginning, and understand that Mac users don't tolerate even application crashes, much less full system crashes. But most large developers don't seem to share this perception.

Memory protection is a wonderful thing for debugging; I don't think that has anything to do with it. The 3% marketshare does.

Oh, it's wonderful for debugging; I never denied that. I prefer a memory-protected environment for debugging myself (though it's getting harder and harder to find environments which aren't memory-protected). Unfortunately, many developers also get into the mindset that application crashes are "better" or "more acceptable" than system crashes, and thus they put them at a lower priority. And so even though it's nicer to debug, debugging takes a somewhat lower priority since bugs aren't as "dangerous".

Ambrosia doesn't follow that school of thought, and that's good. If only more developers would open their eyes like that.

karbon · Jan 11, 2003, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by Millennium:
Ambrosia doesn't follow that school of thought, and that's good. If only more developers would open their eyes like that.

So, what kind of software/applications are you talking about then? I can't come up with anything that crashes frequently in OS X, and I use "normal stuff" like Dreamweaver, Photoshop and Word/Excel, iCal, MacSOUP, Mail, Final Cut Pro, FileMaker...

The last crash I recall was with Safari, which crashed yesterday on a specific site (don't remember the URL). But it's public beta, so what can you expect?

Personally, I've never had more crash-proof system (both system and application-wise) like OS X. YMMV.