×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

165 comments

Service pack 3? (1, Troll)

apathy maybe (922212) | more than 5 years ago | (#23555039)

So, let's see if I understand this correctly, this is sorta like a Service pack three, but for Mac OS 10.5?

Does this just fix bugs? Or is it a feature release as well?

Can people on dial up get a free CD sent out?

(No, I don't use MS Windows, I also don't use Mac OS, though I have used it extensively at school/uni in the past and always preferred it to MS Windows. Mind you, it was a lot easy to fuck up the school Win98 machines then the Mac OS 9 ones... I use Ubuntu.)

Re:Service pack 3? (5, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#23555175)

OS X 10.5 is, in many ways, a big step up from 10.4, but it was clearly rushed to market. I've been using it since the official release, and it's felt like a beta OS for all of that time - random pauses for a few seconds, crashes every month or so, occasionally taking two or three attempts to resume from suspend and so on. It's really hard to tell whether the improvements with 10.5 outnumber the regressions at this stage, and so this is a very welcome update (although, really, this should have been 10.5.0 and the previous ones should have been betas). In general, these don't contain new features, although occasionally they will, but they will be minor improvements, while the big changes come in the major releases (the 10 isn't really part of the version number, it's part of the name).

A few corrections to OP (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23555297)

#1- OS X has no bugs. Every Apple user knows that.

#2- at $150, the next "feature pack" is going to be a huge bargain!

Re:A few corrections to OP (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23555779)

The cost is $0 jackass.

Re:A few corrections to OP (1)

dolphinling (720774) | more than 5 years ago | (#23556049)

Not if you have do download it over a per-megabyte connection.

Re:A few corrections to OP (1, Flamebait)

gullevek (174152) | more than 5 years ago | (#23556199)

Go to the next starbucks and do it there ... Seriously, where in the more or less developed world where people can afford Macs do you still have a per megabyte limited internet.

And if you use your mobile phone for dial up, there are much cheaper alternatives, even for minimal daily browsing ...

Re:A few corrections to OP (3, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 5 years ago | (#23556263)

Go to the next starbucks and do it there
Pretty tough to get an iMac in there, no?

Seriously, where in the more or less developed world where people can afford Macs do you still have a per megabyte limited internet.
Residential Internet connections in at least New Zealand and Australia still have low monthly caps (by world standards) on bandwidth to the American and Eurasian continents.

Re:A few corrections to OP (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23556371)

And Macs have no bugs, jackass.

So... at what point can everyone finally conceed that Leoptard was an epic failure? Personally, I have a MacBook Air, and I run only Vista on it. Aside from the fact that I need to use it as a real computer, Leoptard is just too horrible... and I have no desire to wait around for them to polish the turd. I use Vista because It Just Works.

Maybe they should let people "upgrade" to Tiger, but that doesn't seem to be an option.

Re:Service pack 3? (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 5 years ago | (#23555347)

Personally, I've not felt that 10.5 is that big of a change from 10.4, which has always made it extra strange that it is that buggy. The main reason I upgraded (Time Machine) has always been solid as well. I still like the 10.4 dock better, it's not quite as featurefull but it is easier to see.

Re:Service pack 3? (3, Interesting)

archkittens (1272770) | more than 5 years ago | (#23555419)

i dunno how stable time machine is supposed to be, but it certainly isnt on the imacs we got at school for our art lab. of course, the fact that art students are the ones who keep managing to mess things up with it might have a great deal more to say about the problem...

Re:Service pack 3? (4, Interesting)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#23555571)

I thought Time Machine was great when I saw the demos, but it is completely incompatible with File Vault, which means you have to choose between security and safety for your data. You can kind-of use it with File Vault, but it will only run backups when you log out (which is something I only ever do to reboot for software updates), and so is completely useless.

The biggest improvement with 10.5 is that Spotlight now actually works. In 10.4 it was so slow that I could generally find files faster without it. With 10.5 it is fast enough to be useful.

I keep my dock on the left side, attached to the top-left corner, and the 10.5 dock is about as nice as the 10.4 one, just different. Most of the visual 'improvements' make things worse. The transparent menu bar is hideous with most background colours. The larger drop shadows are okay, but they don't really make up for the fact that the new style gives less of a visual clue as to which window is raised (I've typed things in the wrong window a lot more often since upgrading). There are lots of little regressions, particularly in the text system (CoreText is definitely not ready for prime time) and especially with Rosetta.

The new Preview is very nice - I now use it exclusively, where I used to use 3 different apps for PDFs, and Quick Look and Coverflow are both nice for browsing the filesystem, although I don't use them very often. Support for ODF in TextEdit is definitely useful for small docs, since OO.o takes forever to launch.

I do, however, find I am using fewer and fewer Mac-only apps, so I am not sure if my next computer will be a Mac.

Re:Service pack 3? (1)

vijayiyer (728590) | more than 5 years ago | (#23556899)

If you're always logged in, why do you use FileVault anyway? I don't think it offers much of a benefit then unless you're worried about physical theft of your hard drive alone.

Re:Service pack 3? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#23557673)

My screen is locked when I am not using the machine (and it's suspended requiring a password to resume when I'm carrying it). An attacker that really cared could use a FireWire vulnerability to bypass the protections and get at things in RAM, but it would be a lot of effort (and they'd have to do it before the battery went flat). File Vault is probably enough protection to get a thief to decide to just wipe the drive and sell the machine, rather than look through my files, which aren't particularly secret but do include a lot of personal correspondence and names, addresses, birthdays and so on of my friends which might well be enough for some simple identity theft.

Re:Service pack 3? (0)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 5 years ago | (#23557083)

I thought Time Machine was great when I saw the demos, but it is completely incompatible with File Vault, which means you have to choose between security and safety for your data. You can kind-of use it with File Vault, but it will only run backups when you log out (which is something I only ever do to reboot for software updates), and so is completely useless.
huh? So you were a fan of file vault till they came out with time machine and then suddenly File vault is useless? So they have features that cannot be used together, big deal. File vault is mainly for laptops that risk exposure or shared machines in neither case is Time Machine going to be the preferred way of backing up the machine so it's not a big crossections of folks that needs both on one machine I'd say.

The biggest improvement with 10.5 is that Spotlight now actually works. In 10.4 it was so slow that I could generally find files faster without it. With 10.5 it is fast enough to be useful.
Yep. in 10.4 it was worthless. piece of crap. I got a new machine with 10.5 and it suddenly worked. I was scratching my head. Did I dod something different on this new machine? I had not heard anyone elese talking about the fact that Spotlight actually worked. So I guess it's not just me.

I keep my dock on the left side, attached to the top-left corner, and the 10.5 dock is about as nice as the 10.4 one, just different.
mine hangs to the right.

Re:Service pack 3? (0, Offtopic)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#23557331)

huh? So you were a fan of file vault till they came out with time machine and then suddenly File vault is useless?
Well, yes, since when I upgraded to 10.5 my File Vault home directory became inaccessible in 10.5 (although my 10.4 machine could still read it without problems) and I haven't wanted to try reactivating it yet because I'm not a huge fan of losing data. (Before you ask, yes I did file this as a bug report and it was marked as a duplicate).

So they have features that cannot be used together, big deal. File vault is mainly for laptops that risk exposure or shared machines in neither case is Time Machine going to be the preferred way of backing up the machine so it's not a big crossections of folks that needs both on one machine I'd say.
Huh? File Vault is most useful to laptop users (i.e. most Mac users), since laptops are the most likely machines to be stolen. Time Machine is most useful to laptop users (i.e. most Mac users) since laptop drives are the most likely to fail (due to increased stresses from being bounced around) and most likely to be lost / stolen. How are these not overlapping sets?

Considering the number of people who have complained about File Vault losing data, people using File Vault are likely to be the ones most in need of a good backup solution.

The thing that most bugs me about this is that there is absolutely no reason for Time Machine to not work with File Vault. A correct implementation would keep an encrypted disk image on the backup device with the same password as the original, have hard links in the image for versioning inside the image and copy files in whenever you ran the backup utility, just as it does on the main filesystem with unencrypted images. Then you would have to either have your password or the file vault master password in order to run the backup, which seems completely understandable.

Use an encrypted disk image (1)

rhombic (140326) | more than 5 years ago | (#23557835)

File vault is way overkill, and not the most useful way to protect your data on a laptop. Why encrypt your browser cache? Or your iTunes library? No need to take the performance hit on those.

One (I think better) way is to use disk utility to create an encrypted disk image (AES, 128 or 256 bit key), using a fully random password. Mount the disk image, type in the password, store all your confidential documents in it. When you're ready to pack up & move, eject the drive & it goes back to being a fully encrypted file. No logging out necessary, time machine will back it up just fine (as long as you've shut it).

Re:Service pack 3? (0)

goombah99 (560566) | more than 5 years ago | (#23558265)

The thing that most bugs me about this is that there is absolutely no reason for Time Machine to not work with File Vault. A correct implementation would keep an encrypted disk image on the backup device with the same password as the original, have hard links in the image for versioning inside the image and copy files in whenever you ran the backup utility, just as it does on the main filesystem with unencrypted images. Then you would have to either have your password or the file vault master password in order to run the backup, which seems completely understandable.
If you think this through you can see the problem. the time machine vault could after a while be hundreds of gigabytes or more in size. every time it updated it would have to decrypt the entire hundreds of gigabytes and create some place to store the decrypted image. Where are you going to mount it, and are you really going to put up with your computer stopping every ten minutes to update the encrypted vault? The it has to re-encrypt all the hundreds of gigabytes. Either that or it would have to decrypt it on the fly for all accesses. This is going to get brutal. Perhaps there's some lighter weight non-monolithic protocol or other ways they could store incremental changes between massive decypts. But given all the problems they had getting file vault working in the first place I can see why maybe they would see that time machine 1.0 does not need file vault too. leave that for 2.0

Re:Service pack 3? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 5 years ago | (#23558693)

What are you talking about? My File Vault disk image is 30GB (or was, before I upgraded to 10.5) and I never had to decrypt the whole thing. That's how block device encryption works - you only encrypt or decrypt the blocks you are accessing. With any relatively modern hard CPU, I/O, not encryption, is the bottleneck. On my MBP, openssl speed aes tells me that I can get about three times my internal disk's typical sustained throughput using a single core (and there's no reason why alternate blocks couldn't be encrypted in parallel on both cores).

File Vault, and the underlying cryptographic subsystems already let you access compressed images well into the tens of gigabytes with only a small performance overhead. Allowing the Time Machine target volume to use this subsystem creates no problems that do not exist already.

Time Machine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23555583)

Personally, I've not felt that 10.5 is that big of a change from 10.4, which has always made it extra strange that it is that buggy. The main reason I upgraded (Time Machine) has always been solid as well. I still like the 10.4 dock better, it's not quite as featurefull but it is easier to see.
Time Machine alone makes it worth the upgrade.

As far as I know, it's simply the best backup option for all users below the enterprise level. There's no other program I know of which can make full backups in the time and space it takes to make incremental backups (through carefully-controlled hard-links).

Re:Time Machine (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | more than 5 years ago | (#23556305)

Time Machine alone makes it worth the upgrade.

I'll second that. It's amazing how easy it is to browse through the history and find exactly what I'm looking for.

Re:Time Machine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23558401)

Fah, the hardlink method is the biggest 1980s-style hackjob. It sucks for anything which uses a database or large storage file.

The great part about Time Machine is all in the front-end and the system integration. Maybe in 10.6 Apple will have a less archaic filesystem that can do snapshot style backups.

Re:Service pack 3? (5, Funny)

sdpuppy (898535) | more than 5 years ago | (#23555997)

Ha! Back in my day we "time machined " using tar -u -g -v -f $backup_disk/$backup_dir/$backup_name up hill both ways in 10 feet of snow and we liked it! - heck our time machine had shiny knobs and dials with detailed oak scroll work not like this cheap plastic injection molded junk and and...

hey kids, get your durn iPods off my lawn!

$backup_disk? (1)

1729 (581437) | more than 5 years ago | (#23558213)

Ha! Back in my day we "time machined " using tar -u -g -v -f $backup_disk/$backup_dir/$backup_name
$backup_disk? Come on, kid! In my day, we backed up to tape and we liked^H^H^H^H^Htolerated it.

Re:Service pack 3? (3, Interesting)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#23557161)

I still like the 10.4 dock better, it's not quite as featurefull but it is easier to see.

I don't know if this will be helpful, but I found I liked the Leopard dock better after running:

defaults write com.apple.dock no-glass -boolean YES; killall Dock

It gets rid of the 3D look and gives the same look that the dock takes when you move it to the side of the screen.

Re:Service pack 3? (3, Funny)

delire (809063) | more than 5 years ago | (#23559393)

I don't know if this will be helpful, but I found I liked the Leopard dock better after running:

defaults write com.apple.dock no-glass -boolean YES; killall Dock
With cryptic commands like these just to get basic functionality how can anyone expect Normal Users to migrate to the platform? This is exactly the kind of thing that happens when you let geeks design user interfaces!

Re:Service pack 3? (2, Insightful)

clang_jangle (975789) | more than 5 years ago | (#23555581)

Having used Apple machines much of the time since 1987, I have long ago stopped rushing to the newest OS version. It's almost always best to wait six months to a year after a new point release, it will usually take that long to be really ready. I dislike that, but my experience with FreeBSD, Debian, and even Windows tells me that's pretty much the way they all do it.

Re:Service pack 3? (1)

gullevek (174152) | more than 5 years ago | (#23556237)

yeah, me too. Until all apps work, plugins are updated and os bugs are solved it's best to wait. I have now 10.5.2 running at office and it works nice, but for home I will wait for 10.5.3 ...

Re:Service pack 3? (2, Informative)

mr_matticus (928346) | more than 5 years ago | (#23556377)

10 isn't really part of the version number, it's part of the name).
No, it's definitely part of the version number, just like the leading 5 (or now, 6) in Windows version numbers. What it's not is the major release number (that's the second, just like in Windows).

The breakdown is very simple: Generation.Major_release.Minor_release, with build numbers appended to that. Windows does an almost identical pattern Win2k (5.0), WinXP (5.2), etc. MS's numbering is non-sequential, but it's not really any different. Hell, Windows 7.0 is actually being called Windows 7 for now.

'OS X' is a brand in its own right, and one Apple has spent a lot of resources and effort building. The '10' in the version number that matches the 'X' in the name isn't cast in stone, and to claim that part of the version number is part of the brand is misleading. The stupid Mac-people meme of "when will we hear about OS XI?" skips right past the far more likely case that there will NEVER be an OS XI. They will either stick with OS X as a brand and move right on to OS X 11.0, or they'll come up with something entirely new when the time comes.

Re:Service pack 3? (2, Interesting)

demallien2 (991621) | more than 5 years ago | (#23556593)

No, the previous post was correct. The 10 in Mac OS X 10.5.3 is most definately NOT equivalent to the 5/6/7 in Windows. Think of it in terms of the names. Windows 5 = XP, Windows 6 = Vista, Windows 7 = ...
Mac:
10.3 = Panther, 10.4 = Tiger, 10.5 = Leopard.

The fact that the name changes should be a big indicator for you that this is a major release, not just a 'point' release.

If you don't like the marketting way of looking at things, think of it from the software management side of things - APIs don't change for point releases, but they do for major releases. In which case, the change from 10.4 to 10.5 is most definately a major release.

Sheesh, I don't know why we still have to explain this to people. Maybe I should have just responded with a great big fat 'TROLL'

Re:Service pack 3? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23557291)

No, you are wrong. Windows 2000 = Windows 5, Windows XP = Windows 5.1, Windows Server 2003 = Windows 5.2. Or were those not major releases?

Re:Service pack 3? (2, Insightful)

demallien2 (991621) | more than 5 years ago | (#23558649)

Windows Server 2003 is a different line of product, as is Mac OS X server on the Apple side. Why bring it up? As for XP/Windows 2000, How many apps written for XP didn't run under 2000. I personally never came across any. That's because there were hardly any changes to the API, and the few major changes were backported to Windows 2000 anyway.

On the other hand, just try running software written for Leopard on Tiger. Under the bonnet, these two version of Mac OS X are massively different, with the introduction of Core Animation, the Time Machine APIs, the Objective C 2.0 runtime, with it's garbage collector, the Scripting Bridge so that Ruby and Python programmers get to be first class citizens. There really wasn't a corresponding change between Windows 2000 and XP.

Re:Service pack 3? (1)

1729 (581437) | more than 5 years ago | (#23558345)

No, the previous post was correct. The 10 in Mac OS X 10.5.3 is most definately NOT equivalent to the 5/6/7 in Windows. Think of it in terms of the names. Windows 5 = XP, Windows 6 = Vista, Windows 7 = ...
Mac:
10.3 = Panther, 10.4 = Tiger, 10.5 = Leopard.
Do you remember what came before OS X? OS 9. And before that, OS 8. And before that, System (or OS) 7 . . .

Re:Service pack 3? (1)

demallien2 (991621) | more than 5 years ago | (#23558517)

Yes, and maybe you might want to explain why two applications with no common code should nevertheless share a common numbering system???

Re:Service pack 3? (1)

1729 (581437) | more than 5 years ago | (#23558677)

Yes, and maybe you might want to explain why two applications with no common code should nevertheless share a common numbering system???
Huh? Are you objecting to the comparison between Windows major version releases and Mac major version releases? The details about what constitutes a major version, a minor version, or a point release vary significantly between different software projects. However, that doesn't change the fact that all of the OS X releases are major version number 10.

Re:Service pack 3? (1)

demallien2 (991621) | more than 5 years ago | (#23558817)

Hey, I don't know about you, but a major release of an OS for me is when the underlying APIs have major changes. If you really want to insist that major releases are when the marketting drones decide to change the first number in the release version number, knock your socks off. Unfortunately you will have lost any useful meaning in the term "major release", but if it makes you feel any better, go right ahead, I'm certainly not going to waste my time further arguing with you about it.

Re:Service pack 3? (1)

1729 (581437) | more than 5 years ago | (#23559027)

Hey, I don't know about you, but a major release of an OS for me is when the underlying APIs have major changes.
Good, I'm glad you've settled that for all of us. Now, in the real world, it isn't so simple. What constitutes a "major change" to an API?

The project I work on the most is gcc, where a minor version release (such as the upcoming 4.4) includes all sorts of new features, some of which might be backwards incompatible. I don't know what will constitute the next "major" gcc release, though some developers advocated switching the major number to 5 to indicate the change from the GPLv2 to the GPLv3.

Re:Service pack 3? (4, Interesting)

bhima (46039) | more than 5 years ago | (#23555353)

It's more like a *nix version increase than an MS service pack... sort of. Apple uses a lot of open source BSD stuff... so when they update all that stuff it has whatever the open source crowd has done, plus whatever Apple decides to do with it. I recall some new features in the 10.4 succession... so I guess 10.5.3 might contain some new features but I wouldn't hope for anything earth shattering (like ZFS). I truly wish they would fix the Bluetooth audio headphone thing but I suppose it isn't priority.

People still have dial up? I expect that Apple would ship disks on request but I wouldn't expect them for free. I've never had Apple refuse a reasonable service request but I've never asked for that. Also I'll bet you can download a PPC or X86 (or a version for a specific sort of Mac like my cube) which is substantially smaller. That universal binary thing is really, really nice (my 8 core mac pro can boot from the same hard drive as my Quad PPC G5 and my PPC G4 Cube) but it makes things twice as large.

I would say that sane Mac users will ignore this news and wait until the software update app on their Mac alerts them. Really smart users will postpone that for while to see if there are a rash of catastrophes caused by the update⦠even if there is a bug fix or update they are interested in.

Re:Service pack 3? (3, Informative)

Phroggy (441) | more than 5 years ago | (#23559137)

People still have dial up? I expect that Apple would ship disks on request but I wouldn't expect them for free. I've never had Apple refuse a reasonable service request but I've never asked for that.
You can also stop in at an Apple Store [apple.com] if there's one in your area, and they'll usually give you a copy for free, from what I understand.

first toast! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23555069)

I ate my first piece of toast today. And by toast, I mean pizza I found in the break room. I think it was leftover from Friday or something.

I call bogus (0, Troll)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 5 years ago | (#23555185)

Macs have no bugs, everyone knows that. This is just scaremongering by the Windows crowd. Yep, that'll be it.

Re:I call bogus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23556139)

And even if there is anything remotely like a bug, it still just works.

I hope it's true (2, Insightful)

xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D (1160707) | more than 5 years ago | (#23555213)

Will they fix Spaces? Make X11 usable?

Once upon a time, you could buy an Apple product and expect it to work. Then the common wisdom became "as long as you don't get revision A, it should be okay". Now I'm to the point where I'm not even expecting the fucking fourth revision to work properly.

Re:I hope it's true (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 5 years ago | (#23555701)

The "Don't buy Rev A." only applied to hardware. Me, I don't see any advantages over 10.4, so I'm sticking with that as long as I can.

Re:I hope it's true (1)

mortonda (5175) | more than 5 years ago | (#23555729)

Could you clarify what's wrong with them? I use both all the time with no problems.

What's wrong with Spaces (4, Interesting)

pauljlucas (529435) | more than 5 years ago | (#23556765)

Suppose I have Terminal windows in space 1 and Safari in space 2. I'm currently browsing in space 2 and I now want another Terminal window here in space 2. I Command-Tab to switch to Terminal. I'm immediately brought back to space 1 which isn't what I wanted. I'm forced to create the new Terminal window in space 1 and move it to space 2. Note that if instead I immediately switch back to space 2, Terminal will no longer be the front-most app.


If I already have a Terminal window in space 2 and want to create another one, this fact doesn't help because Spaces keeps track of the space the front-most window of an application is in. So even if there is a Terminal window in space 2 but a Terminal window in space 1 is more "front-most" than the one in space 2, then when I Command-Tab to switch to Terminal, I'll be brought back to space 1. Again, this isn't what I wanted.

The current behavior of Spaces whereby it auto-switches spaces or changes what the front-most app is (presumably to be "helpful"), IMHO, makes Spaces broken and unusable. Spaces should never automatically switch spaces nor change the front-most app no matter what (or at least have a Preference to make this the case).

I've been an Apple fan-boy since my Apple ][plus, but Leopard is the first version of OS X that I thought wasn't very compelling (and kind of broken) on release.

Re:What's wrong with Spaces (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23556847)

Take some time and read the freaking docs you idiot. Apps can be locked to always open on the current window OR always open on one window. there IS a preference for this. I use spaces all the time and have no problems understanding how it works , or working with it.

Re:What's wrong with Spaces (5, Informative)

AlpineR (32307) | more than 5 years ago | (#23558557)

I think Anonymous Grump is referring to a hidden preference:

Disable Space switching on Command-Tab in 10.5.2 [macosxhints.com]

That might solve your problem of Command-Tab'ing to an application without changing Space. For me, I tend to open applications with the mouse. It'd be nice if I could tell Terminal and Camino to default to opening a new window on the current Space rather than transporting me to an open window on another Space. But I'm slowly forming the habit of opening new windows with right-clicks instead.

Re:What's wrong with Spaces (1)

porcupine8 (816071) | more than 5 years ago | (#23557381)

The weirdness of Spaces is one of the main reasons I haven't had my department upgrade my laptop yet. Desktop Manager (from berlios.de) pretty much gets it right in all the important ways - why was it so hard for Apple to do the same? I also don't know what I'd do without the mini-outlines in my menubar - it's amazing how much info you can get just from glancing at tiny outlines of the shape of the windows. I can't always remember what I put in each desktop, but glancing at that and I can easily see which are pdfs in Preview, which are terminal windows, etc, and click on the one I want on the first try most times.

Re:I hope it's true (2, Informative)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 5 years ago | (#23555733)

Did you ever use OS X versions 10.0 or 10.1? Those two versions of the OS were absolute nightmares. I couldn't recommend OS X over OS 9 until 10.2 came out. I've been using 10.3.9 for quite some time now, and it has been extremely stable. Now we just got a 24" iMac last week and it seems to behave pretty flawlessly EXCEPT my wife's dock seems to disappear every once in a while under her account. I can't duplicate the problem under my account, but I'm hoping this problem will be fixed in the update.

Re:I hope it's true (5, Informative)

corser (995751) | more than 5 years ago | (#23557811)

I had a similar issue. I could duplicate it by the following
1. Turn on full screen visualization in iTunes
2. Stop the music (or otherwise have iTunes to nothing)
3. Allow the computer to start the screen saver (or turn off the monitor )
4. Wake up the screen
If will now be exited from the visualization but the dock will be missing. My guess is that starting a full screen app sets a flag to hide the dock and the method I describe bypasses setting it back.
I was able to get the dock back by going into full screen visualization and then exiting it.
(* trying it again right now to make sure I'm not a liar)

Re:I hope it's true (1)

corser (995751) | more than 5 years ago | (#23557927)

Guess I'm not a liar. It might not be the same cause as GP but the last part about bringing it back might work for you and your wife.

Re:I hope it's true (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23556117)

For usable X11, install the latest Xquartz [macosforge.org].

Re:I hope it's true (1)

mmkkbb (816035) | more than 5 years ago | (#23557107)

I fixed Spaces by not enabling it :)

I would hope that Apple is rolling up the recent work on Xquartz so that X11 actually works. The Xquartz devs echo this hope, but don't seem to know anything.

Big Creepy Crawlies... (2, Interesting)

kiwioddBall (646813) | more than 5 years ago | (#23555269)

Thats some patch! Nearly 500Mb - With 200 bug fixes thats 2Mb or so a bug.. Them bugs are big 'uns! Surely that figure is inaccurate?

Perhaps it will roll out piecewise like Vista SP1 and take only 65Mb to download on your average machine.

Re:Big Creepy Crawlies... (2, Insightful)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 5 years ago | (#23555633)

They might be replacing binary files that they can't run a patch on, or maybe there's some other reason... but regardless you can be reasonably assured that they won't just put 500 Mb download for no good reason.

Re:Big Creepy Crawlies... (-1, Troll)

Free the Cowards (1280296) | more than 5 years ago | (#23555707)

Apple doesn't do delta updates. They do ship updates which only carry the changed files, but those updates contain a complete copy of the files in question. This means that if a 60MB binary needs one byte changed to fix one bug, that bug fix adds 60MB to the update. With the typical OS install clocking in at several gigabytes it's entirely believable that a slew of small fixes would require a 500MB of files to be changed.

Re:Big Creepy Crawlies... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23556147)

You also have to take into consideration that that is the fully standalone "universal binary" patch.

You have two copies of every "patch" for PPC and Intel so that doubles the size automatically.
 
Then you take into consideration that this may be smaller depending on "how much" of the update your machine needs.

And just an FYI, standalone service packs for XP are far from tiny as well.

SP1 for xp was about 150MB as a standalone, SP2 was over 250MB and SP3... It's freaking huge and tips the scales at around 600MB.
 
There are big differences between standalone updates and selective updates that are smaller based on you individual computer.

Re:Big Creepy Crawlies... (1)

corser (995751) | more than 5 years ago | (#23557885)

You have two copies of every "patch" for PPC and Intel so that doubles the size automatically.
I think it would be 3-4 copies. 32-bit and 64-bit for each architecture. I say 3-4 cause I'm not entirely sure they have 32-bit PPC.

Leopard has been fine for me (5, Informative)

Thornburg (264444) | more than 5 years ago | (#23555291)

Just to contrast the "great, because 10.5 has been so buggy for me" posts:

I've been using 10.5 on two different machines for quite some time now, and I have had not had very many problems at all, and none since the 10.5.2 update.

Re:Leopard has been fine for me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23556421)

So, all the bugs are just working fine for you, eh?

Where are moderators with balls? This post ("but mine just works fine") would be modded down to hell in any other thread, but no - this is an Apple thread.

Re:Leopard has been fine for me (1)

thegnu (557446) | more than 5 years ago | (#23556569)

I had it locking up pretty severely on my newly purchased MB, but I employed a solid 30 minutes of JFGI'ing, and found some thread with the command that resolved the issue.

Since then, it's locked up maybe once a month. Which happened more regularly on Linux because of flash and firefox, anyway. Among other things. And actually, NEVER happened on my Windows XP SP2 (and pre-WGA) box, though every time I used it, it made me die a little inside.

All in all, Leopard is pretty freaking sweet.

Re:Leopard has been fine for me (2, Interesting)

fermion (181285) | more than 5 years ago | (#23556573)

I installed 10.5 the week it came out. I don't normally do this, but I had ne machine was really getting bogged down on the original 10.4 install, and 10.5 was a good excuse to give it a fresh install. Given that it had been three years since the last update, I thought it was a good risk.

Overall things worked ok. X windows was more or less down, but that is has been a common problem, and I have moved away from depending on X. That said, I don't think 10.5 was functional until 10.5.1. We will see what 10.5.3 has to offer.

OTOH, I saw 10.5.2 as a minor issue, on that actually broke the DVD player on a powerbook. Thankfully VLC is there to fullfill all my video playing needs, without the complications of DVD player. Therefore, i am not sure what to expect from 10.5.3. Will it fix problems, or merely make the PPC even more obsolete. Who knows. I would now comment about the need for Apple to think of a new OS, but I still like my PPC machines. The next OS, and set of apps, will sure be Intel only.

You don't do any audio then. (1)

crovira (10242) | more than 5 years ago | (#23557137)

I've been dual booting from a 10.5.1 drive since 10.5.2 because GarageBand's audio processing of effects is all screwed up.

It introduced noise when trying the get any echo and/or reverb and generally screwed up recording from my Samson C01U USB microphone.

Its more of a PITA than anything else. I keep spares of working environments around. (I'd've been screwed if I hadn't learned something in 30 years of doing IT. [Don't trust 'em.])

Re:Leopard has been fine for me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23557433)

I run 10.5.2 and get occasional kernel panics (one or two a month). Applications are buggy, Mac Mail crashed today, so I rebooted (it had been a few weeks). FireFox crashes a lot. Not very polished.

My XP installation at home keeps sporadically rebooting.... I think I'm going to go back to 2000.

Re:Leopard has been fine for me (1)

corser (995751) | more than 5 years ago | (#23557981)

10.5.2 has been 90% fine for me. Occasionally, it won't wake up from sleep for a few minutes and there are weird graphical glitches in Safari when I run off battery.

Aluminium Keyboard Update Bug (2, Interesting)

neoform (551705) | more than 5 years ago | (#23555329)

I know I'm not the only one with this bug, but Apple still hasn't responded to this problem. My software update *always* lists the "Aluminium Keyboard 1.0 Update" as being ready for install, no matter how many times I install the update. It's very annoying.

Re:Aluminium Keyboard Update Bug (1)

Rob_Bryerton (606093) | more than 5 years ago | (#23555977)

Select the update, hit delete, then confirm that you don't want to see it anymore. Problem solved.

Re:Aluminium Keyboard Update Bug (3, Informative)

FrankDeath (746264) | more than 5 years ago | (#23557641)

I had the same problem. You're not actually completing the installation. Download the fix from Apple's download page (http://www.apple.com/support/downloads/) and run the update manually.

I hope they finally fixed IPv6 now... (1)

EdSchouten (786365) | more than 5 years ago | (#23555369)

Not long after the 10.5 release, I bought a MacBook 2.2 GHz to replace my PowerBook 867 MHz, which had obviously Mac OS X 10.5 preinstalled.

There seems to be a bug in 10.5, which wasn't in 10.4. It is impossible to configure static IPv6 addresses inside the System Preferences utility. Try it. The only way to use IPv6 in OS X 10.5, is to use radvd or configure them with ifconfig. I'd rather not ifconfig, because I use a lot of different network locations. :-/

Re:I hope they finally fixed IPv6 now... (1)

shani (1674) | more than 5 years ago | (#23557269)

Too bad Apple does not believe in DHCPv6.

But really, why not simply use auto-configured addresses?

Re:I hope they finally fixed IPv6 now... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23557335)

Posting as Anonymous Coward because I've already modded this thread and don't want to waste the mod points, but I also want to be helpful.

You can quite easily configure static IPv6 addresses via System Preferences. It's not all that hard. Here's how:

  1. Open System Preferences.
  2. Click on the Network preference pane. (Optionally, select or create a location from the Location drop-down.)
  3. Select the network interface you wish to assign a static IPv6 address.
  4. Click Advanced...
  5. Depending on the interface (e.g. Airport), you may need to select the TCP/IP tab, if it is not selected by default (e.g. Ethernet).
  6. Change the Configure IPv6 drop-down from Automatically to Manually.
  7. Input your settings for Router, IPv6 Address, and Prefix Length.

That wasn't so hard, now was it?

Just 200 bugs? (2, Interesting)

grikdog (697841) | more than 5 years ago | (#23555375)

Which 200 bugs are they talking about? Why do they know about 200 bugs? Does that mean 200 users of Mac OS X 10.5.3 have been screwed, if each bug is sufficiently obscure? What is the average user footprint of each of these ten score bugs? Isn't progress wonderful? Now we use statistics and databases to decide how many bugs HAVE to be flushed before users balk and refuse to buy. In the old days, bugs were personally embarassing to the poor sap who perpetrated them during development. I guess we have Bill Gates to thank for "Good Enough" programming, 'ey? What a champ!

Re:Just 200 bugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23555639)

Not everything is the fault of Bill Gates, unfortunately.

http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html

Re:Just 200 bugs? (4, Informative)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 5 years ago | (#23555799)

OS X uses quite a bit of OSS stuff. There's a good chance that a good portion of these bugs aren't theirs.

http://httpd.apache.org/security/vulnerabilities_20.html [apache.org]
I see 3 vulnerabilities in Apache 2 right there.

My Leopard install is showing "OpenSSL 0.9.7l 28 Sep 2006" while my Debian machine is showing "OpenSSL 0.9.8g 19 Oct 2007". I imagine there might be a few bugs there, and it's late enough that it wouldn't have been released close enough to be included in 10.5.0.

Lets see in /usr/(s)bin, zip, gunzip, tar, efax, cron, ip6config, postfix, cups. No chance they had any bugs. They're good open source software.

Responding to you and the guy below, the reason that these bugs are 'so big' is that Apple isn't sending out a bunch of .diff files as updates. If they're upgrading Apache 2 they have to recompile as a universal binary and send out that entire file.

Re:Just 200 bugs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#23558695)

while my Debian machine is showing "OpenSSL 0.9.8g 19 Oct 2007".

uhh... a few bugs?

Re:Just 200 bugs? (1)

pyite (140350) | more than 5 years ago | (#23558921)

My Leopard install is showing "OpenSSL 0.9.7l 28 Sep 2006" while my Debian machine is showing "OpenSSL 0.9.8g 19 Oct 2007". I imagine there might be a few bugs there, and it's late enough that it wouldn't have been released close enough to be included in 10.5.0.

Actually, the bug there is in Debian, not OS X. It's rather serious, too, so you might want to check it out [debian.org]. If your machine is publically exposed and running SSH, it might have already been rooted.

Audio Problems in 10.5.2... (3, Informative)

weston (16146) | more than 5 years ago | (#23556213)

Some recent discussion on audio in Leopard:

http://createdigitalmusic.com/tag/leopard/ [createdigitalmusic.com]

Now, note in particular that Digidesign's struggles aren't limited to Leopard (see, for example "Digidesign and M-Audio Drivers Fail to Keep Pace with Vista, Leopard, and XP SP3") -- I personally think Digi as a company has a problem. But they're not the only vendor mentioning audio issues in 10.5.2, and there are others like MOTU who haven't been explicitly complaining but have had product release delays (DP 6 was supposed to be out Q2).

I bet one of them (1)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 5 years ago | (#23556621)

is that bug which requires me to reboot my iMac after every iTunes and/or Quicktime update.

Who to blame? (1)

http (589131) | more than 5 years ago | (#23557317)

If I recall correctly, it was VisiCalc who first said, "Here's our spreadsheet software. And if anyone dies because some engineer actually trusted the results, don't come running to us." I'm open to correction on this.

Bugs in Software Update (3, Interesting)

vapspwi (634069) | more than 5 years ago | (#23555499)

I recently upgraded my MacBook to 10.5, and have been regretting it. I only use some of the new features (don't really care about Time Machine, one of the biggies), and a lot of stuff that used to Just Work (wireless networking) has become problematic.

The biggest problem I had, oddly, was with downloading software updates - the downloads would mysteriously stop after a few seconds or minutes (and not due to loss of network connectivity - a Windows box on the same network was able to download stuff rock solid, at the same time), and would never resume. Had to do some kind of Mac voodoo (Restore Permissions, or something like that) to fix it. So I'm a little concerned about even being ABLE to download a 500 MB software update, due to bugs in the software...

JRjr

Fixes (4, Informative)

WilyCoder (736280) | more than 5 years ago | (#23555509)

Here [apcmag.com] is a compiled list of fixes in 10.5.3.

Re:Fixes (2, Interesting)

starglider29a (719559) | more than 5 years ago | (#23556409)

I read the list, and my eyes glazed over. I run PShop, Parallels, MSOffice, InDesign, RDC to my server. I thought I worked this poor 24" iMac to death. But I don't even know what 99% of those bugs are. Never been near them.

What I have seen more of is "Identity Crisis" as I run Parallels, Spaces and RDC. Keyboard shortcuts that do one thing in one environment, do something else in another. Try running IE in Parallels and press F11 to go full-screen. Exposé takes over and ZOOP! Everything heads to the margins. Or do a Ctrl-Left Arrow on a text field in a browser and ZOOP! Spaces takes you to Frame #4.

These aren't bugs, just conflicts. Good problem to have.

Re:Fixes (1)

lpontiac (173839) | more than 5 years ago | (#23556711)

Ooh, nice..

BSD Kernel and unbuffered i/o no longer hangs


My understanding is that this is a major factor in miserable performance when starting and stopping virtual machines.

Critical bug (3, Funny)

AlpineR (32307) | more than 5 years ago | (#23558773)

Thank Jobs, they fixed this:

Text-to-Speech and Hysterical voice no longer causes hang

Now my business can finally make the switch to 10.5.

Friendly Reminders (1, Informative)

Spencerian (465343) | more than 5 years ago | (#23556695)

Being an Apple technician, my natural tendency is to avoid new Apple products since they often get a little rushed to market. But yes, some software and some hardware updates later, all is good. My first generation MacBook was a mess. I knew the job was dangerous when I took it...er, bought it. It's a fine system now, 10.5 installed, and one logic board later.

The biggest problem anyone will have with an 10.4 to 10.5 upgrade is installing 10.5 over the 10.4 installation. Welcome to Pain, here's your pitchfork. Don't EVER do this, even if Apple supports it, when moving from one reference release (10.4.0) to another (like 10.5.0). It might work with Windows migrations, but not so much here.

It's not the system level parts that cause issues, but applications that worked OK in 10.4 and user account data will fight with the new 10.5 settings. Making a clean install and transferring your user account with the Migration Assistant might be OK, if you are careful.

Those new to Macs will be happy to know that Apple tends to have the serious bugs squashed flat by the ".3" updates or so. Luckily, Apple also rolls out these counterparts to Windows Service Packs with greater frequency, keeping you from gnashing your teeth for very long.

Re:Friendly Reminders (5, Informative)

ratbag (65209) | more than 5 years ago | (#23559283)

And as an anecdotal rebuttal to all that, I've personally updated two machines from Panther -> Tiger -> Leopard and my family at large has done Jaguar -> Panther -> Tiger -> Leopard on G5s, PowerBooks, MBs, MBPs and MacPros, using a wide range of software (we're all photography buffs, one of us is a designer, two of us are developers, one MacPro is still running Tiger). Backup, upgrade. If you have problems, do a clean install. But so far we've done just fine with upgrades, thanks.

One Fix is for 802.1X (2, Informative)

Greatmoose (896405) | more than 5 years ago | (#23556923)

I know at least one of the major fixes is an 802.1X implementation that actually works without having to install the Internet Connect App. It's finally going to correctly support 802.1X PEAP w/WEP and WPA, something the previous version of 10.5 did horribly, if at all. Installing the Internet Connect app from 10.4 was a useful workaround, but seemed like a pretty stupid thing to have to do, especially for an apple product. But, as along as 10.5.3 works, my clients should be hapy (if a bit annoyed that it took so long).
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...