Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

svtcontour · Jul 10, 2006, 01:29 AM

on an old B&W G3 400Mhz with a UW 9gig 7200RPM SCSI drive (last disaster of an update left me with a message saying "starting login window" or something to that effect and it would sit there. Tried starting holding shift and couldnt get anywhere that way either - safe mode or what have you. First time apple update screwed me, left me on the grey screen with the do not enter symbol and nothing I tried got me past.

So anyway reinstalling yet again but this time its going by nearly 3x faster. Took my spare 36gig U160 Maxtor Atlas 10K SCSI and tossed it. Now I'm prepared. Reinstalls will take no time at all.

svtcontour · Jul 10, 2006, 02:04 AM

Love it. Hosed again after an update - after a fresh install too

All was fine but after the u pdate finished, it said that some updates could not be downloaded or done and then it gave me the you must restart thing. Ok did that and upon restart, got greeted with the nice grey screen with the black box with the informative "you must hold the power button..." Thanks.

Is this apple's way of forcing me to upgrade or what

Big Mac · Jul 10, 2006, 03:11 AM

Simple fix: don't apply the updates. There is no law that compels anyone to install the incremental releases, and if they're giving you trouble just ignore them. I have been running OS X since 10.0, and while I do not apply every sequential incremental update, I have never had a single issue with the ones I do install.

sknapp351 · Jul 10, 2006, 06:47 AM

I don't get it. I have 3 different Macs and I am a desktop suport tech for a state university that has about 25% Macs. I have never personaly seen any issues with incremental updates. I install every one.
SAm

Person Man · Jul 10, 2006, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by sknapp351

I don't get it. I have 3 different Macs and I am a desktop suport tech for a state university that has about 25% Macs. I have never personaly seen any issues with incremental updates. I install every one.
SAm

Everyone is quick to blame Apple for every little problem after an update without stopping to realize that one of their third party products or the system hack they applied two months ago and forgot about is the real culprit.

And then they post a "WARNING: OS X 10.x.x update will hose your installation, because it hosed mine."

Yes, sometimes Apple IS to blame (i.e. iTunes 2 installer), but those instances are actually few and far between.

ghporter · Jul 10, 2006, 08:47 AM

And what about the quality and reliability of a person's broadband connection? Why blame Apple or your Mac when it may actually be your ISP's doing (or lack of doing to make sure your connection is consistent and reliable)?

Moose · Jul 10, 2006, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

And what about the quality and reliability of a person's broadband connection? Why blame Apple or your Mac when it may actually be your ISP's doing (or lack of doing to make sure your connection is consistent and reliable)?

Do you even know how the internet and Mac OS X .pkg archives work? The chance of a corrupted download causing these problems is too infinitesimal to merit mention. I suggest you read up on TCP error correction and archive checksums.

It's a random fluke, sure. I've gotten bitten by I think one update ever (10.2.1). I don't blame Apple at all, really. It's impossible to QA every possible permutation of events.

But, seriously, it isn't his internet provider. At all.

SMacTech · Jul 10, 2006, 11:39 AM

Originally Posted by Moose

But, seriously, it isn't his internet provider. At all.

I agree with Moose and was somewhat surprised to see his post stating that his ISP may be to blame.

I think your OLD G3 has some problems.

ghporter · Jul 10, 2006, 08:39 PM

I've seen "uncorruptable" files get really badly messed up by ISP infrastructure components. Some have "error correcting" systems that fix holes in files so that the customer doesn't need a retransmission-but they are not perfect systems. I agree with you, Moose, that there could quite easily be an issue with the OP's specific setup that is not properly handled by the update. I was more trying to get people thinking about things other than "Apple's update system never works."

Abit667 · Jul 10, 2006, 11:28 PM

I had a B&W G3 450 with a U160 scsi card that gave me all kinds of problems trying to install panther on it. Did pretty much the same stuff your describing. Is this the first time you're running a later version of os x on it?

svtcontour · Jul 12, 2006, 12:33 AM

Hmmm wow someone with the same symptoms as I had finally

Yes actually it is the first time I'm trying to run a fairly current OSX. I had 10.2 on there and it seemed to be fine. It was also stable under OS9 and heck its even stable in 10.3.x as long as I dont do the latest updates.

Mind you I finally got around it somehow...well by doing the combined updates first and then doing all the other software updates. If I just select them all and try to do it in one shot, then it will fail.

Also I'd like to know why in gods name am I presented with updates to isight and itunes..etc when I never installed them. Shouldnt software updated be smart enough to show me updates that are relevant to my install(s) ?

Person Man · Jul 12, 2006, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by svtcontour

Also I'd like to know why in gods name am I presented with updates to isight and itunes..etc when I never installed them. Shouldnt software updated be smart enough to show me updates that are relevant to my install(s) ?

Well, they can't know ahead of time who has an iSight (external) or an iPod. iTunes is part of the OS install. Anyway, just use the ignore feature.

svtcontour · Jul 12, 2006, 04:23 PM

They dont have to know ahead of time what I've got installed or will install...software update should check my system and see what I've got installed and then present only those updates. If it cannot find itunes, then dont present an update for itunes and its annoying that the feature thats not even installed on my system is presented to me and selected by default. I gotta go unchecking a half a dozen things that I dont even have?

Moose · Jul 12, 2006, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by svtcontour

They dont have to know ahead of time what I've got installed or will install...software update should check my system and see what I've got installed and then present only those updates. If it cannot find itunes, then dont present an update for itunes and its annoying that the feature thats not even installed on my system is presented to me and selected by default. I gotta go unchecking a half a dozen things that I dont even have?

Select update.
Either select "Ignore Update" from the Update menu or press the backspace key.

If you own an iSight but don't have it plugged in when you run SWU, what do you expect the system to do?

svtcontour · Jul 12, 2006, 05:24 PM

OMG this cant be so difficult. OK lets assume I have the following installed:

OSX 10.3.x with no additional components...
-no itunes
-no isight
-no iphoto
-no nothing other than the base install.

WHY should I get updates presented to me for the things NOT INSTALLED on the system. I'm assuming its hard to grasp for anyone not having used windows that the system update might be aware of what you have or need..... Is software updated a 'blind' updater? What I mean is that it has no clue for example if I have or do not have itunes as an example? If I dont have it, why is the option in my update list and why is it selected. Thats my question. Is there no way for the system or software update to say "hey wait a minute... he doesnt have itunes installed so maybe I wont provide him with the itunes update"

jasong · Jul 12, 2006, 05:44 PM

Because then people will freak out that Apple is spying on their system and transmitting data about it over the internet? Nah, Mac users would never do that.

Maybe because you might not be using iTunes due to a bug or issue with it, and by letting you know a new version is out you can check to see if your bug/issue has been fixed and the program is now "safe" to use.

Maybe because as stated earlier you have one of these devices that isn't currently hooked up.

Maybe because in reality it is faster to choose ignore update than it is to have this stupid argument?

Moose · Jul 12, 2006, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by svtcontour

OMG this cant be so difficult.

I agree. It isn't. You've been told several times how to make them go away.

Originally Posted by svtcontour

Is there no way for the system or software update to say "hey wait a minute... he doesnt have itunes installed so maybe I wont provide him with the itunes update"

Unwanted updates need only appear once, at which point they can be ignored.

I understand that telling SWU to ignore updates takes precious time away from reading your back issues of MacAddict, but that's the price you pay to live in a civilized world.

Moose · Jul 12, 2006, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by jasong

Because then people will freak out that Apple is spying on their system and transmitting data about it over the internet? Nah, Mac users would never do that.

Actually, Apple can just transmit the entire update catalog and have SWU do the heavy lifting to see what's installed and needs updating. I believe Windows Update works like that.

Angus_D · Jul 12, 2006, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Simple fix: don't apply the updates. There is no law that compels anyone to install the incremental releases, and if they're giving you trouble just ignore them. I have been running OS X since 10.0, and while I do not apply every sequential incremental update, I have never had a single issue with the ones I do install.

Retarded attitude to take. Major security fixes often ship with point releases. You should run the latest released version.

Big Mac · 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by Moose

Actually, Apple can just transmit the entire update catalog and have SWU do the heavy lifting to see what's installed and needs updating. I believe Windows Update works like that.

AFAIK, Software Update does check on whether you have certain things installed or not. It's just that Apple pushes certain system component updates on all machines, whether or not they'll ever be used. For example, Software Update asks if I want to install updated Airport drivers on my G5 even though it does not have Airport installed, but it does not ask me if I want to install updates to any of the professional packages that I do not have installed.

Originally Posted by Angus_D

Retarded attitude to take. Major security fixes often ship with point releases. You should run the latest released version.

It's not a retarded stance. Look, if a person is bitching about the point releases screwing up his or her computer, then I'd rather that person not attempt to install them. Security fixes are much less desirable if they're going to disable a machine, and although I have never had a problem with an incremental update a number of other people have had serious issues. It may be because they have hardware problems like bad RAM or a bad drive. Whatever the case may be, the choices for those people are either to fix their machines when the updates fail or discontinue applying them. Do you have a better solution, Angus?

jasong · Jul 13, 2006, 09:35 AM

Those security fixes are pretty important though, if we don't install them, we might be subjected press releases from Symantec and poorly written articles in CNET about the Mac's swiss cheese security model.

Oh wait, that will happen anyway.

The fact is these security updates fix theoretical exploits, so there's no point screwing up a functioning system for no reason. Personally, I install every update and have never had a major problem (even the minor ones are resolved quickly), but that's just me. If you've got such and old machine that's on the fringe of Tiger support, with lots of modifications, you may be better off leaving your system alone once you get it stable.

Gossamer · Jul 13, 2006, 09:42 AM

I've installed and reinstalled Tiger through 10.4.7 on a couple B&W G3s without a problem, but I think your problem is the SCSI card, as OS X is NOT friendly with some of them.
And in my system updates, Airport shows up but is un-clicked. Better to give everyone too many options than not enough, it's not a good reason to whine.

Angus_D · Jul 13, 2006, 08:00 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

It's not a retarded stance.

Disagree.

jasong · Jul 14, 2006, 11:24 PM

Originally Posted by Angus_D

Disagree.

Disagree. No one has been hurt by any of these vulnerabilities that have been patched. Why should he tip the delicate balance on his machine? As I said, I install every update that comes my way, but I have a world view big enough to know that policy doesn't work for everyone without making them wrong.

ghporter · Jul 15, 2006, 11:26 AM

Originally Posted by jasong

Disagree. No one has been hurt by any of these vulnerabilities that have been patched. Why should he tip the delicate balance on his machine? As I said, I install every update that comes my way, but I have a world view big enough to know that policy doesn't work for everyone without making them wrong.

No one at all anywhere, or no one that YOU know of? Big difference. If Apple thinks it's a serious enough vulnerability to need a patch, it's probably really serious enough for users to patch.

I believe that having a patch screw up an OS X installation is an invitation to call Apple and ask for help. There's got to be something different about such a user's setup, and if Apple knows of it, they might be able to help recover from the problem and/or prevent similar problems in the future. Has anyone thought of doing that?

svtcontour · Jul 22, 2006, 02:05 PM

Ok I think I've narrowed it down to the SCSI support. The funny thing is if I do updates incrementally, its ok. If i select all at once then it fails to boot on the next restart.