Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

PaperNotes · Nov 16, 2007, 03:24 AM

Originally Posted by besson3c

10.5.1 = best scrollbars ever!

You're were the one loving over Ubuntu windows going up in flames so puleeze.

Simon · Nov 16, 2007, 03:46 AM

What a shame the update didn't fix the X11 bugs.

WOPR · Nov 16, 2007, 06:46 AM

The sidebar bug is still there. If I unmount my external drive instead of it's name disappearing, it is replaced by the name of my internal drive, which is then listed twice.

- - e r i k - - · Nov 16, 2007, 07:34 AM

Saft is no longer working. Even though Safari didn't get updated.

Kevin · Nov 16, 2007, 08:07 AM

Safari didn't get updated? Safari Block didn't break on me. Try messing with your permissions..

I WAS the One · Nov 16, 2007, 08:54 AM

If someone make a Dock hack for letting me put folders the old way I'll will buy it right now, it's one of the functions that I used to use a lot and now it's gone.

techtrucker · 09:37 AM

Here's a weird one, just started with 10.5.1 - Spotlight won't find Disk Utility. It'll find all other apps I try, including others in the Utilities folder. Not a big deal, really, but I do use Spotlight to launch apps that I don't keep in the Dock. Maybe I'll try forcing a reindex...

-Q- · Nov 16, 2007, 10:19 AM

Gah, 10.5.1 killed my MBP's keyboard and trackpad. ASP sees it fine, the ambient light sensor still works, but the machine won't recognize any key inputs or motion on the trackpad. External keyboard and mouse works fine, thankfully.

I installed the update via Software Update and restarted. Finding the keyboard borked, I downloaded the update from Apple.com but that hasn't fixed it. Anyone have any suggestions? A keyboard.kext or something that may have gotten hosed?

oeyvind · Nov 16, 2007, 10:34 AM

Anyone notice that the Finder copy now is kinda "slow" after the update?

nerd · Nov 16, 2007, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

I think there was some kind of bug that was zeroing out random files on the disk in certain cases if people were using the computer while running Software Update. It had something to do with the prebinding stage that gets run after Software Update completes.

This is true according to this. Unsanity.org: Shock and Awe: How Installing Apple's Updates can Render Your Mac Unbootable and How You Can Prevent it

Don Pickett · Nov 16, 2007, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by nerd

This is true according to this. Unsanity.org: Shock and Awe: How Installing Apple's Updates can Render Your Mac Unbootable and How You Can Prevent it

It can be prevented with common sense: don't do anything with your machine while it's running an update.

TETENAL · Nov 16, 2007, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

It can be prevented with common sense: don't do anything with your machine while it's running an update.

If you followed that advice anyway I guess you don't mind the new system.

Don Pickett · Nov 16, 2007, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by TETENAL

If you followed that advice anyway I guess you don't mind the new system.

I don't understand what you're saying.

CharlesS · Nov 16, 2007, 12:36 PM

Well, the reason people are complaining about the new SU mechanism is that it doesn't let them do anything with their machine while it's running an update. So if you weren't going to do that anyway, then it would seem that you wouldn't be bothered by the new SU mechanism.

Kevin · Nov 16, 2007, 12:47 PM

That kinda sucks. Because at work I am constantly doing something in the background while SU is running.

*sigh*

Don Pickett · Nov 16, 2007, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Well, the reason people are complaining about the new SU mechanism is that it doesn't let them do anything with their machine while it's running an update. So if you weren't going to do that anyway, then it would seem that you wouldn't be bothered by the new SU mechanism.

Like I said, this has always seemed a common sense thing to me. I also wouldn't try to start my car while I was changing the oil.

besson3c · Nov 16, 2007, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by PaperNotes

You're were the one loving over Ubuntu windows going up in flames so puleeze.

That's a very creative mischaracterization, or at least a misunderstanding on your part.

besson3c · Nov 16, 2007, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

Like I said, this has always seemed a common sense thing to me. I also wouldn't try to start my car while I was changing the oil.

It's not a common sense thing. You can update any OS files other than the kernel while the OS is running. Processes are loaded into memory, and are not unloaded and restarted until you tell them to. If a process needs to access files that are temporarily not available, it should die (and launchd will attempt to restart it). Otherwise, changed files will be picked up once the process is restarted. If the process currently loaded into memory doesn't need to access any external files, the old version will continue to run until it is restarted. You won't get the benefits of the updated version, but under other Unix OSes these processes are restarted for you. I don't understand why Apple couldn't do the same thing with OS X.

Ubuntu's apt-get system is excellent. The only time you have to restart the machine really is after kernel level changes. Others may require a termination and restart of the X session (which you can do by logging out and back in).

It is pretty retarded that something like Quicktime forces a restart of the entire computer, and Apple, who wrote the bloody thing themselves, could not simply restart any currently running QT processes without forcing a reboot.

Like I said before, I only hope that things have improved under OS X Server, because this behavior would be an utter joke for a server OS, especially if you are using the server for something (such as a web server) where QT is both utterly irrelevant and unimportant.

Don Pickett · Nov 16, 2007, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Ubuntu's apt-get system is excellent. The only time you have to restart the machine really is after kernel level changes.

That's absolutely not true. I have had to restart my Ubuntu machine after doing relatively simple upgrades.

It is pretty retarded that something like Quicktime forces a restart of the entire computer, and Apple, who wrote the bloody thing themselves, could not simply restart any currently running QT processes without forcing a reboot.

It's not retarded. It is done for a simple reason: the OS is meant to make computing accessible for your average user. It's much easier to just have him or her restart. What I don't understand is why people are complaining that you've always had to restart after point updates.

CharlesS · Nov 16, 2007, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

It's not a common sense thing. You can update any OS files other than the kernel while the OS is running. Processes are loaded into memory, and are not unloaded and restarted until you tell them to. If a process needs to access files that are temporarily not available, it should die (and launchd will attempt to restart it). Otherwise, changed files will be picked up once the process is restarted. If the process currently loaded into memory doesn't need to access any external files, the old version will continue to run until it is restarted. You won't get the benefits of the updated version, but under other Unix OSes these processes are restarted for you. I don't understand why Apple couldn't do the same thing with OS X.

That's all well and good, but in practice, running SU while doing stuff in the background was causing problems, for whatever reason, in Tiger. Apple changed things in Leopard to cut down on the "DON'T INSTALL <some update>!!! I installed <some update> and now <insert random problem here>! How do I downgrade?" posts that we always saw on here after every software update in Tiger and below.

ShALLaX · Nov 16, 2007, 03:16 PM

"We will never need more than 640KB of ram"

Originally Posted by voodoo

What we will not see ever in 10.5 is:

1. Any or significant change of Stacks
2. New progress bars/scroll bars
3. Finder improvements

What we will see in 10.5 is :

1. Support for a new Apple gadget
2. Some under-the-hood improvements
3. Lots of app bug-fixes

So I guess it is a good thing when one doesn't notice anything different when upgrading the OS, because then everything has gone according to plan.

For any significant update we'll have to wait until 10.6, whenever that will be.

V

MartiNZ · Nov 16, 2007, 03:38 PM

The iTunes dashboard widget could use some love. It has been broken since 10.4.0 with at least one consistent bug (pressing shuffle causing the widget to crash with a dialog) that I reported to Apple every single point point upgrade. 10.5.0 made it even worse - you can't even select playlists from the 'reverse side' of the widget, and it's even easier to crash it.

In my favourite three words of the moment: "Maybe in 10.6".

They also didn't fix the wginormous vs. ginormous issue with the spell-checking. "Maybe in 10.6?"

besson3c · Nov 16, 2007, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

That's absolutely not true. I have had to restart my Ubuntu machine after doing relatively simple upgrades.

Such as?

It's not retarded. It is done for a simple reason: the OS is meant to make computing accessible for your average user. It's much easier to just have him or her restart. What I don't understand is why people are complaining that you've always had to restart after point updates.

I don't mind restarting after point updates. I get irritated restarting after every little minor update. For one, it's an inconvenience to have to plan a restart, and this inconvenience results in postponement which makes a machine vulnerable in the process, in the case of security updates.

Plus, I work on server OSes all day, and I think that there is nothing limiting the underpinning of OS X to be treated more like a server OS in this respect. In general, you restart a server only when you have to. I don't necessarily want to deal with my machine not coming back online at that precise moment in time triggered by a stupid Quicktime update, or plan doing large file copies or other jobs around the time the machine is online.

besson3c · Nov 16, 2007, 04:51 PM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

That's all well and good, but in practice, running SU while doing stuff in the background was causing problems, for whatever reason, in Tiger. Apple changed things in Leopard to cut down on the "DON'T INSTALL <some update>!!! I installed <some update> and now <insert random problem here>! How do I downgrade?" posts that we always saw on here after every software update in Tiger and below.

I always felt that all of those posts were just random coincidences... I never understood how something like a bug fix upgrade would affect wireless signal strength like people claimed, for instance. It may have affected what strength was being reported, but actual signal strength?

Perhaps a certain percentage of these were legitimate problems caused by upgrading though, I don't know.

The one thing that seems to have improved with Leopard is that the OS doesn't seem to slow down over time. I suppose this may have something to do with memory resources being properly released after they have been used?

CharlesS · Nov 16, 2007, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

I always felt that all of those posts were just random coincidences... I never understood how something like a bug fix upgrade would affect wireless signal strength like people claimed, for instance. It may have affected what strength was being reported, but actual signal strength?

Perhaps a certain percentage of these were legitimate problems caused by upgrading though, I don't know.

Well, some files were allegedly getting zeroed out during the prebinding phase. I wouldn't go so far as to say that would cause all of the problems that people reported, but it seems plausible that they could have been causing some of them.

The one thing that seems to have improved with Leopard is that the OS doesn't seem to slow down over time. I suppose this may have something to do with memory resources being properly released after they have been used?

Yeah, I suspect the reason they added garbage collection to Objective-C was in order to fix their own apps' memory leaks.

besson3c · Nov 16, 2007, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Well, some files were allegedly getting zeroed out during the prebinding phase. I wouldn't go so far as to say that would cause all of the problems that people reported, but it seems plausible that they could have been causing some of them.

Prebinding seems to be a unique OS X term/concept... Is it basically what Apple calls using something like ldconfig?

Are you saying that these caches were zeroed out? If so, the fact that this happened and OS X didn't deal with this gracefully sounds to me like more of a bug rather than a fundamental flaw with upgrading this way... Am I missing something?

Yeah, I suspect the reason they added garbage collection to Objective-C was in order to fix their own apps' memory leaks.

Isn't garbage collection something that Java is pretty good about providing?

CharlesS · Nov 16, 2007, 05:34 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Prebinding seems to be a unique OS X term/concept... Is it basically what Apple calls using something like ldconfig?

Prebinding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deprecated, but still used by Apple's installer. It's what's happening during the "Optimizing System Performance" stage.

Are you saying that these caches were zeroed out? If so, the fact that this happened and OS X didn't deal with this gracefully sounds to me like more of a bug rather than a fundamental flaw with upgrading this way... Am I missing something?

Supposedly, the issue could cause entire files to have their contents deleted and become zero-length, which could obviously cause any number of problems.

Isn't garbage collection something that Java is pretty good about providing?

Yes, but Apple doesn't use Java to write most of its apps.

besson3c · Nov 16, 2007, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Prebinding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Deprecated, but still used by Apple's installer. It's what's happening during the "Optimizing System Performance" stage.

Yeah, I know... It looks like it has been replaced with dynamic linking, which I believe is what Linux does. Is Mach-O being phased out too, in favor of ELF or something else? If so, it would seem like Apple is trying to move OS X's subsystem to a more traditional Unix/Linux system and killing off vestiges from its NeXT days.

Supposedly, the issue could cause entire files to have their contents deleted and become zero-length, which could obviously cause any number of problems.

Wow.... nasty.

Yes, but Apple doesn't use Java to write most of its apps.

Yeah, I know... I just remember back in the day when Java showed up and everybody was excited about it, this was one of its trumpeted features. I thinking having a lot of garbage collection creates an overhead though, perhaps this has been compensated with in Leopard though, because it feels at least as fast as Tiger.

Don Pickett · Nov 16, 2007, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Such as?

Can't tell you off the top of my head, as I don't keep track. But Ubuntu doesn't release new kernels that often, and I have to restart more than that.

For one, it's an inconvenience to have to plan a restart, and this inconvenience results in postponement which makes a machine vulnerable in the process, in the case of security updates.

Plan a restart? What's there to plan? Unless your machine is constantly doing some form of rendering or hosting, what's to plan?

Plus, I work on server OSes all day, and I think that there is nothing limiting the underpinning of OS X to be treated more like a server OS in this respect. In general, you restart a server only when you have to. I don't necessarily want to deal with my machine not coming back online at that precise moment in time triggered by a stupid Quicktime update, or plan doing large file copies or other jobs around the time the machine is online.

Because it's NOT a server OS. It's a consumer OS, targeted at people who don't even know what a server is. There' s no reason to expect it to act like a server just because its underpinnings are shared to OS X server.

analogika · Nov 16, 2007, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

Like I said, this has always seemed a common sense thing to me. I also wouldn't try to start my car while I was changing the oil.

If using your system during a software install is likely to break it, allowing you to use it during a software install without having to distinctly override the default is broken interface design. Period.

Eug · Nov 16, 2007, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

I always felt that all of those posts were just random coincidences... I never understood how something like a bug fix upgrade would affect wireless signal strength like people claimed, for instance. It may have affected what strength was being reported, but actual signal strength?

Well, and OS upgrade affected my wireless strength... as in I would get no wireless at all after sleep or reboot in Leopard 10.5.0.

(It worked fine in Tiger 10.4.10, on the same hardware.) I think it may have been an SSID recognition and/or password bug or something. So far it's been working fine in 10.5.1 though.

besson3c · Nov 16, 2007, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

Plan a restart? What's there to plan? Unless your machine is constantly doing some form of rendering or hosting, what's to plan?

Plan to save what I was working on, save my browser session (or remember what tabs I had open), plan to reconnect to any servers I was connected to, make sure there are no scripts or other jobs running that I don't want to have to start over, plan to take the time to do all of this plus start up the app, etc.

Because it's NOT a server OS. It's a consumer OS, targeted at people who don't even know what a server is. There' s no reason to expect it to act like a server just because its underpinnings are shared to OS X server.

Why not? Isn't making things a little more convenient desirable to consumers as well? Wouldn't this R&D be useful to implement in OS X Server too, killing two birds with one stone?

Don Pickett · Nov 16, 2007, 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Plan to save what I was working on, save my browser session (or remember what tabs I had open), plan to reconnect to any servers I was connected to, make sure there are no scripts or other jobs running that I don't want to have to start over, plan to take the time to do all of this plus start up the app, etc.

Dude, save stuff and restart. You're making this waaaayyyyyy too complicated. Looks to me like you're determined to find something to complain about.

Why not? Isn't making things a little more convenient desirable to consumers as well? Wouldn't this R&D be useful to implement in OS X Server too, killing two birds with one stone?

Ordinary users don't care.

goMac · Nov 16, 2007, 09:26 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Plan to save what I was working on, save my browser session (or remember what tabs I had open), plan to reconnect to any servers I was connected to, make sure there are no scripts or other jobs running that I don't want to have to start over, plan to take the time to do all of this plus start up the app, etc.

Hold on, I think I left my world's smallest violin somewhere, and probably with it is my sheet music for the world's saddest song.

CharlesS · Nov 16, 2007, 10:40 PM

If it were a song, though, you wouldn't be playing it on the violin.

besson3c · Nov 16, 2007, 11:20 PM

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

Dude, save stuff and restart. You're making this waaaayyyyyy too complicated. Looks to me like you're determined to find something to complain about.

Ordinary users don't care.

Ordinary users don't care about scrollbars and 95% of the stuff we complain about either.

It's not like my world has been upended because of this, it's just an imperfection that I feel ought to be improved upon, and I feel righteous about it.

Don Pickett · Nov 17, 2007, 12:12 AM

Originally Posted by goMac

Hold on, I think I left my world's smallest violin somewhere, and probably with it is my sheet music for the world's saddest song.

I have to remember that one.

legacyb4 · Nov 17, 2007, 12:35 PM

On my 2GB Macbook, wired memory dropped from about 920MB (no restarts since initial installation after 10.5 release) to about 220MB.

Kevin · 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

It's not retarded. It is done for a simple reason: the OS is meant to make computing accessible for your average user. It's much easier to just have him or her restart. What I don't understand is why people are complaining that you've always had to restart after point updates.

I think certain members are zealous about OSs that aren't Apple's in here sometimes. And they feel they need to "preach the word" to us "ignorant masses"

Because if Apple doesn't make OS X work just like their favorite distro, they are doing things wrong.

Because .nix distros are known for their ease of use, and consistent GUIs.

Originally Posted by ShALLaX

"We will never need more than 640KB of ram"

Yeah I love people that claim absolute facts about things they don't have absolute facts about. At least come off as not being a jerk and start it with "In my opinion" and don't make it out to be facts.

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

Because it's NOT a server OS. It's a consumer OS, targeted at people who don't even know what a server is. There' s no reason to expect it to act like a server just because its underpinnings are shared to OS X server.

Bingo. That and most users don't brag about their "uptimes" like a lot of IT people I hear do. I've seen people hack around having to restart on a upgrade because they didn't want to ruin their "uptime"

Originally Posted by besson3c

Ordinary users don't care about scrollbars and 95% of the stuff we complain about either.

Really? I'll have to tell that to all the people that msg'd me and made me have to clear my inbox out 4 times in less than a week because of people requesting the scrollbar hack I made. I love statistics pulled out the rear.

I'd go check out MacThemes just to see how many people are interested in very small minute GUI features that use Macs.

Then again if I was really a "nix" guy I'd not try to play up the importance of a nice consistent GUI either. Because that is one places most .nix GUIs fail horribly at.

It's like most distros are stuck on Windows 3.1 looking themes.

I've seen some ones done up nicely I admit. But they aren't consistent from app to app.

I am so wanting to move over to Linux. But severe lack of application support and a horrible mess of GUI choices keeps me from doing so.

analogika · Nov 17, 2007, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

Plan to save what I was working on, save my browser session (or remember what tabs I had open), plan to reconnect to any servers I was connected to, make sure there are no scripts or other jobs running that I don't want to have to start over, plan to take the time to do all of this plus start up the app, etc.

While I can relate to this, Safari's "Re-open all tabs from the last session" feature in combination with automatic log-in items has taken care of most of it, to be honest.

It's become only slightly more annoying than a bathroom break.

Kevin · Nov 17, 2007, 05:29 PM

This is pretty much the deal. We were so used to OS 7/9/ Win95/98 going down at least once a day, we don't remind the once every few months restart we have to do now.

besson3c · Nov 17, 2007, 08:17 PM

Originally Posted by analogika

While I can relate to this, Safari's "Re-open all tabs from the last session" feature in combination with automatic log-in items has taken care of most of it, to be honest.

It's become only slightly more annoying than a bathroom break.

I realize all of this, I was not trying to explain how it is inconvenient so that we can pick apart my justification and try to find ways to minimize this inconvenience, I was pointing this out to prove a basic point - it is less than desirable, and as I have pointed out and believe, avoidable.

I realize that I would be exaggerating and blowing the issue out of proportion if I went on and on about how this is a travesty like various members were doing with Leopard scrollbars, but again, this aspect of OS X is imperfect and can be improved upon. This complaint seems at least as legitimate as many others that surface here on a semi-regular basis.

If I had to use Leopard Server and this was the case though, I would be far more aggravated, rightfully so.

Kevin · 08:46 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

I realize that I would be exaggerating and blowing the issue out of proportion if I went on and on about how this is a travesty like various members were doing with Leopard scrollbars,

Don't spin your silliness into an attack on me besson.

iomatic · Nov 18, 2007, 04:01 PM

Are any of these posts relevant to the update, or do they need to be moved to the Water Cooler?

- - e r i k - - · Nov 18, 2007, 08:31 PM

Originally Posted by Kevin

Safari didn't get updated? Safari Block didn't break on me. Try messing with your permissions..

Weird. It's working again now. Sort of. Doesn't have adblock anymore. Which doesn't bother me that much after I started using an adblock hosts file which is much faster anyway.

Simon · Nov 19, 2007, 04:23 AM

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - -

Weird. It's working again now. Sort of. Doesn't have adblock anymore.

Permissions issue?

I couldn't get SafariBlock to show up in Safari until I did

[codex]sudo chown -R root:admin /Library/InputManagers
sudo chmod -R go-w /Library/InputManagers[/codex]

Kevin · Nov 19, 2007, 06:11 AM

Same here Simon.

- - e r i k - - · Nov 19, 2007, 10:31 PM

It's working fully now with 10.0.2 anyway

Kevin · Nov 20, 2007, 07:32 AM

10.0.2? You still using that?

- - e r i k - - · Nov 20, 2007, 08:33 AM

Yes. Of SAFT