PDA

View Full Version : Apple Seeds Build 12E40 of OS X Beta 10.8.4 Developers




MacRumors
Apr 30, 2013, 03:46 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/04/30/apple-seeds-build-12e40-of-os-x-beta-10-8-4-developers/)


Apple today issued (http://9to5mac.com/2013/04/30/apple-seeds-os-x-10-8-4-build-12e40-to-developers/)*build 12E40 of OS X Mountain Lion to developers, a week after build 12E36 (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/04/23/apple-seeds-build-12e36-of-os-x-beta-10-8-4-developers/) was released. Build 12E40 marks the fifth beta iteration of OS X 10.8.4.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2013/04/12e40.png
Apple continues to ask developers to focus on Wi-Fi, Graphics Drivers, and Safari.

The update is available through the software update tool in the Mac App Store and Apple's Developer Page (https://developer.apple.com/).

Article Link: Apple Seeds Build 12E40 of OS X Beta 10.8.4 Developers (http://www.macrumors.com/2013/04/30/apple-seeds-build-12e40-of-os-x-beta-10-8-4-developers/)



thelink
Apr 30, 2013, 03:50 PM
Where do I get one of these magic seeds?

Baklava
Apr 30, 2013, 03:51 PM
For a second I thought it's a 10.9 Beta release. :D

TheGreenBastard
Apr 30, 2013, 03:52 PM
Where do I get one of these magic seeds?

Pay $100. You get all the magic seeds.

locoboi187
Apr 30, 2013, 04:44 PM
I want 10.9!

jan1024188
Apr 30, 2013, 04:49 PM
What if 10.3 was just a placebo. I mean, 10.3 and 10.4 have exactly the same 'focus', wifi, safari, graphics.

Maybe 10.4 was supposed to be 10.3, but they were taking forever with 10.3 so they decided to actually release half baked thing.

EDIT. Sorry, meant 10.8.3, 10.8.4.

JohnDoe98
Apr 30, 2013, 05:07 PM
What if 10.3 was just a placebo. I mean, 10.3 and 10.4 have exactly the same 'focus', wifi, safari, graphics.

Maybe 10.4 was supposed to be 10.3, but they were taking forever with 10.3 so they decided to actually release half baked thing.

Definitely not a placebo. I've noticed a few additional annoying bugs since 10.8.3. Looking forward to 10.8.4...

Kissaragi
Apr 30, 2013, 05:17 PM
Definitely not a placebo. I've noticed a few additional annoying bugs since 10.8.3. Looking forward to 10.8.4...

Maybe thats what they wanted you to think.

Mike MA
Apr 30, 2013, 05:35 PM
8 more seeds to come before we get 10.8.4?

JohnDoe98
Apr 30, 2013, 05:35 PM
8 more seeds to come before we get 10.8.4?

Yep, almost half way there!

coder12
Apr 30, 2013, 05:50 PM
What if 10.3 was just a placebo. I mean, 10.3 and 10.4 have exactly the same 'focus', wifi, safari, graphics.

Maybe 10.4 was supposed to be 10.3, but they were taking forever with 10.3 so they decided to actually release half baked thing.

10.3 & 10.4? Panther and Tiger? ;)

Lancer
Apr 30, 2013, 05:59 PM
Will this fix the networking problems which sees my network drives loose connection after deep sleep?:rolleyes:

Michael Goff
Apr 30, 2013, 06:36 PM
What if 10.3 was just a placebo. I mean, 10.3 and 10.4 have exactly the same 'focus', wifi, safari, graphics.

Maybe 10.4 was supposed to be 10.3, but they were taking forever with 10.3 so they decided to actually release half baked thing.

It seems like it's a bit late to be complaining about Panther and Tiger if you ask me.

MikhailT
Apr 30, 2013, 06:43 PM
What if 10.3 was just a placebo. I mean, 10.3 and 10.4 have exactly the same 'focus', wifi, safari, graphics.

Maybe 10.4 was supposed to be 10.3, but they were taking forever with 10.3 so they decided to actually release half baked thing.

They rarely details the changelog in the seed notes, it is almost always the same general list of area to focus on, it does not imply anything most of the time.

rossip
Apr 30, 2013, 07:14 PM
If anyone that can run the build has OpenGL Extension Viewer, could you post AMD new driver number and if more extensions have been unlocked? Currently on 10.8.3, 50% of OpenGL 3.3 has been unlocked, hopefully 10.8.4 will bring more!

Ddyracer
Apr 30, 2013, 07:31 PM
Hope this fixes sudo, have some weird permission problem, that wasn't there till i updated to 10.8.3

sprawl2
Apr 30, 2013, 11:23 PM
Graphics drivers are now 8.12.46 310.40.00.05f01, which is up from 8.12.45 310.40.00.05f01

tywebb13
May 1, 2013, 01:44 AM
Pay $100. You get all the magic seeds.

not quite

apple have just DELETED builds 12E36, 12E33a, 12E30 and 12E27 from the mac dev center!

Simplicated
May 1, 2013, 02:06 AM
Slow shutdown fixed yet?

SlCKB0Y
May 1, 2013, 03:08 AM
Hope this fixes sudo, have some weird permission problem, that wasn't there till i updated to 10.8.3

What is the problem?

justperry
May 1, 2013, 03:23 AM
Hope this fixes sudo, have some weird permission problem, that wasn't there till i updated to 10.8.3

Just yesterday there was one user with this issue, his admin was off in Users & Groups, you could also try disabling and enabling it.

flottenheimer
May 1, 2013, 03:48 AM
Graphics drivers are now 8.12.46 310.40.00.05f01...

Any significant performance improvements?

(Looking forward to the day when graphicscards on Mac running OS X performs as well as on Mac running Windows).

LV426
May 1, 2013, 04:24 AM
Slow shutdown fixed yet?

Slow shutdowns are usually there for a reason. When you ask the system to shutdown, it politely asks running processes to terminate. There are very many reasons why an individual process may not respond to a shutdown request in a short time. You would not thank your computer, for example, if it powered off with half a file written to your filing system. Hardware problems, as well as software and networking problems, can cause slow shutdowns.

If you use Google you will probably find guidance that you can use to go through the system events that take place during shutdown. There may be some clue there as to why your particular device is taking its time. If you raised a help call with Apple, they would probably ask you to provide the event log.

Sound214
May 1, 2013, 05:17 AM
Safari IS snappier for me with 12E40. Seriously, not kidding. Fastest browsing I've ever experienced.

LV426
May 1, 2013, 06:15 AM
Safari IS snappier for me with 12E40. Seriously, not kidding. Fastest browsing I've ever experienced.

Does this version cache pages correctly? For example, visit the following site, which marks its home page as having a 30-minute expiry.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/

Enable Developer tools: Safari | Preferences | Advanced | Show Develop Menu in menu bar.

Go to the menu bar and choose Develop | Show Page Resources

On the LHS of the tools section, click www.theregister.co.uk.

On the RHS of the tools section, expand Request & Response.

Click the vulture icon near the top of the web page to reload the home page a couple of times. Request & Response should indicate "Cached Yes".

In version 6.0.4, it indicates "Cached No", which is incorrect. This particular site clearly sets response headers that give the page a life of 1800 seconds (expand the Response Headers section). And yet Safari doesn't seem to put it in the cache. That means an unnecessary and slow reload from the internet each time this kind of page is requested.

JGRE
May 1, 2013, 06:15 AM
Slow shutdowns are usually there for a reason. When you ask the system to shutdown, it politely asks running processes to terminate. There are very many reasons why an individual process may not respond to a shutdown request in a short time. You would not thank your computer, for example, if it powered off with half a file written to your filing system. Hardware problems, as well as software and networking problems, can cause slow shutdowns.

If you use Google you will probably find guidance that you can use to go through the system events that take place during shutdown. There may be some clue there as to why your particular device is taking its time. If you raised a help call with Apple, they would probably ask you to provide the event log.

Yeah, but why the sudden since 10.8.X, it was never there in the past and I have never had any data loss as a result of the excellent fast shut down. Now they are telling you to wait for 2 minutes; sounds more like a lame excuse to me......

LV426
May 1, 2013, 06:32 AM
Yeah, but why the sudden since 10.8.X, it was never there in the past and I have never had any data loss as a result of the excellent fast shut down. Now they are telling you to wait for 2 minutes; sounds more like a lame excuse to me......

If you follow the advice given, you may be able to find out why. It won't be happening for no reason. My flaky drive was "never there in the past". My WiFi dropouts were "never there in the past". The "Phone Home" software I installed that ticks away in the background was "never there in the past" etc.

The tools are there for you to find out what is happening during shutdown. I'm not going to do it for you. I suggest you do some research rather than expect something to happen by magic.

Digitalclips
May 1, 2013, 06:52 AM
If you follow the advice given, you may be able to find out why. It won't be happening for no reason. My flaky drive was "never there in the past". My WiFi dropouts were "never there in the past". The "Phone Home" software I installed that ticks away in the background was "never there in the past" etc.

The tools are there for you to find out what is happening during shutdown. I'm not going to do it for you. I suggest you do some research rather than expect something to happen by magic.

Excellent post. There is a psychological phenomenon that people suffer from after updates or upgrades. After 30 plus years fixing Apple equipment I have lost count of the times people suddenly 'observe' something they perceive as 'caused' by 'changes'. Two come to mind. One guy's color monitor went black and white ... he had never had a color monitor (this on an Apple ][), and only yesterday after upgrading a woman's Mac to Mountain Lion she insisted her iPad would no longer send SMS messages ('which it had always been able to do'). There should be a specific medical name for these mental conditions ... LOL

saturnotaku
May 1, 2013, 09:08 AM
Graphics drivers are now 8.12.46 310.40.00.05f01, which is up from 8.12.45 310.40.00.05f01

Can anyone using a Mac equipped with an AMD GPU comment on a driver version change?

milo
May 1, 2013, 09:36 AM
It won't be happening for no reason.

The reason is because Apple messed up shutdown in 10.8 (or was it 10.7 and still continuing?). There's nothing to research or troubleshoot, this is a universal problem. It's probably worse for some people than others, but virtually every user has slower shutdowns than with 10.6. And it's not a perception issue, it's easy enough to time how long it takes to shut down, and it's measurably much longer on 10.8 than 10.6.

I suggest you do some research before posting an answer that's nothing more than an uninformed gut reaction.

LV426
May 1, 2013, 10:05 AM
The reason is because Apple messed up shutdown in 10.8 (or was it 10.7 and still continuing?). There's nothing to research or troubleshoot, this is a universal problem. It's probably worse for some people than others, but virtually every user has slower shutdowns than with 10.6. And it's not a perception issue, it's easy enough to time how long it takes to shut down, and it's measurably much longer on 10.8 than 10.6.

I suggest you do some research before posting an answer that's nothing more than an uninformed gut reaction.

Rubbish. It's not a universal problem. People with slow shutdowns will complain about it, and those without will not. The former are a vocal minority. If, for any reason, later builds do happen to be slower, have you considered for a moment that there might well be a very good reason for it? A reason that is not related to impatience?

At the risk of repeating myself, there are tools available to see exactly what your machine is up to when it shuts down. Such logs are there to cater for users who have problems with their setup. If you can be bothered to look into it. Which I can't, because my laptop shuts down lickety-split, thank you very much.

GIZBUG
May 1, 2013, 10:08 AM
Where do I get one of these magic seeds?

Google.com ;)

----------

Any significant performance improvements?

(Looking forward to the day when graphicscards on Mac running OS X performs as well as on Mac running Windows).

No. been running all these 10.8.4 betas. Nothing ground breaking or significant on my end over the official OS that is public.

legioxi
May 1, 2013, 10:27 AM
The reason is because Apple messed up shutdown in 10.8 (or was it 10.7 and still continuing?). There's nothing to research or troubleshoot, this is a universal problem. It's probably worse for some people than others, but virtually every user has slower shutdowns than with 10.6. And it's not a perception issue, it's easy enough to time how long it takes to shut down, and it's measurably much longer on 10.8 than 10.6.

I suggest you do some research before posting an answer that's nothing more than an uninformed gut reaction.

Weird, when I do a clean install... shutdowns are fast. Once I load up all the services and apps I use, only then do things change. Seems like a user issue and not an OS issue.

milo
May 1, 2013, 11:55 AM
It's not a universal problem.

Rubbish. Go look at the apple support boards, it's one of the most widespread things going on with OSX right now. Even if you're happy with the shutdown speed on your mac under 10.8, you can't say there's not an issue unless you've compared it to 10.6 and verified that it isn't any slower.


Weird, when I do a clean install... shutdowns are fast. Once I load up all the services and apps I use, only then do things change. Seems like a user issue and not an OS issue.

If the only way to avoid slower shutdowns is to not install or run any apps, that sure sounds like a universal issue as opposed to a user one.

LV426
May 1, 2013, 12:43 PM
Even if you're happy with the shutdown speed on your mac under 10.8, you can't say there's not an issue unless you've compared it to 10.6 and verified that it isn't any slower.

If the only way to avoid slower shutdowns is to not install or run any apps, that sure sounds like a universal issue as opposed to a user one.

Yes I can. I did have 10.6, and going to 10.8 has not affected my machine in any noticeable way. Neither has it done so for numerous people I know personally who run 10.8 across a variety of machine types. Ergo, it's not a universal problem. If it were, I and the people I know would have it.

The poster to whom you responded has not identified the particular process that is causing an issue on his computer. But it does seem to be an application-related matter in his case rather than an OS issue.

Krazy Bill
May 1, 2013, 12:55 PM
If you use Google you will probably find guidance that you can use to go through the system events that take place during shutdown.
Another newbie to the shut down "bug". Take your own advice and search the MR threads about it.

If you raised a help call with Apple, they would probably ask you to provide the event log.We've been doing this for months. :eek:

ghostface147
May 1, 2013, 02:39 PM
Does this version cache pages correctly? For example, visit the following site, which marks its home page as having a 30-minute expiry.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/

Enable Developer tools: Safari | Preferences | Advanced | Show Develop Menu in menu bar.

Go to the menu bar and choose Develop | Show Page Resources

On the LHS of the tools section, click www.theregister.co.uk.

On the RHS of the tools section, expand Request & Response.

Click the vulture icon near the top of the web page to reload the home page a couple of times. Request & Response should indicate "Cached Yes".

In version 6.0.4, it indicates "Cached No", which is incorrect. This particular site clearly sets response headers that give the page a life of 1800 seconds (expand the Response Headers section). And yet Safari doesn't seem to put it in the cache. That means an unnecessary and slow reload from the internet each time this kind of page is requested.

Cached is set to no.

tywebb13
May 1, 2013, 02:44 PM
My Thinkpad T400 (with W7) shutsdown MUCH slower than my MBP (with 10.8.3) and MBA (with 10.8.4).

Frankly I find the T400 slowness more frustrating than the MBP or MBA.

MacsRgr8
May 1, 2013, 02:46 PM
Another newbie to the shut down "bug". Take your own advice and search the MR threads about it.

We've been doing this for months. :eek:

Must admit that I'm not sure if it really is a bug or that Apple has made 10.8 do "something extra" during the shutdown sequence.

The slower shutdown feels like 10.8 is doing some simple maintenance to the hard drives orso. Or something like doing a short update of the Spotlight index...?

After installing a fresh 10.8.3 on a Mac Pro and on a Mac mini with SSD the slowish shutdown exist there too. They don't take annoyingly long, but they're clearly longer than before 10.8.

IMHO, might not be a bug, but a feature... :o

fivedots
May 1, 2013, 03:27 PM
The slow shutdown bug (or feature) is most definitely legitimate issue. Sure, perhaps it is caused by a combination of user software and 10.8, but nonetheless it is present on many systems where it did not previously exist.

In my case, my 2012 15" rMBP with SSD on 10.8 shuts down much slower than my 2011 13" cMBP with a regular hard disk did through 10.6 - 10.7.

Tora Shin
May 1, 2013, 03:29 PM
The slow shut down is defiantly a global problem. I have/had the problem, (I can't remember if 10.8.3 fixed it and I rarely shut down anyway) but it was usually accompanied by a file appearing in your trash when you next boot up.

JohnDoe98
May 1, 2013, 03:57 PM
Must admit that I'm not sure if it really is a bug or that Apple has made 10.8 do "something extra" during the shutdown sequence.

The slower shutdown feels like 10.8 is doing some simple maintenance to the hard drives orso. Or something like doing a short update of the Spotlight index...?

After installing a fresh 10.8.3 on a Mac Pro and on a Mac mini with SSD the slowish shutdown exist there too. They don't take annoyingly long, but they're clearly longer than before 10.8.

IMHO, might not be a bug, but a feature... :o

Except for the small fact that the console logs show that Apple processes' have failed to shutdown during the exit time out interval, requiring the OS to force quit them, i.e. to "kill them" as the logs report. In other, more simple, words: the computer isn't shutting down the processes properly. This isn't a feature and has nothing to do with maintenance, spotlight, third party apps, etc. The OS has asked those system processes to shutdown and they haven't responded, and thus they ended up being "killed" by the OS, meaning whatever it was they were doing it was cut off before finishing.

The only reasonable explanation I've seen is that there is some bug causing a few of these processes not to respond and it requires fixing. This doesn't have to do with restoring apps, auto-saving, etc. as is evidenced by the fact that even though the system force quit those processes, none of those features not present in 10.6 are adversely affected. Many of us have changed the time out interval to quicken the process with no noticeable differences. In other words, we kill the process after 1 second rather than 20. Apple has it at 20 seconds to make sure if the process does respond, it'll have time to close properly. But that isn't happening anyway.

bedifferent
May 1, 2013, 04:44 PM
Cached is set to no.

Ditto. Surprised. Hmmm.

koban4max
May 1, 2013, 05:43 PM
It's time apple put some magic seeds up their anal to produce more updates. What the heck is up with apple these days? ....cook....

Michael Goff
May 1, 2013, 06:56 PM
It's time apple put some magic seeds up their anal to produce more updates. What the heck is up with apple these days? ....cook....

Yeah, you'd think that there was 10.8.1, 10.8.2, two supplemental updates to 10.8.2, 10.8.3, and now 10.8.4 being tested.

That's only 6 updates in less than a year. They should be up to 10.8.18 or something by now.

:rolleyes:

JohnDoe98
May 1, 2013, 08:13 PM
Yeah, you'd think that there was 10.8.1, 10.8.2, two supplemental updates to 10.8.2, 10.8.3, and now 10.8.4 being tested.

That's only 6 updates in less than a year. They should be up to 10.8.18 or something by now.

:rolleyes:

Or conversely, you'd think after 6 updates everything would be silky smooth. How bad of a state was 10.8 to begin with? I guess we should be highly enthusiastic that 10.9 might be somewhat functional 6 updates after it's initial release?

iLog.Genius
May 1, 2013, 08:59 PM
LOL. People are actually arguing that there isn't a "slow shutdown issue"? Whether you think it's an issue or not, it exists and not a perception thing. There are a few threads about doing stuff in terminal that will make Mountain Lion shut down like it did in Snow Leopard. There are also threads where people are suggesting that the OS is doing some background processes (iCloud related?) which is causing the spinning gear before actually shutting down.

I haven't really read those threads because I don't have a problem with the length of the shutdown since a rarely shutdown anyway, but they do exist.

LV426
May 2, 2013, 12:11 AM
LOL. People are actually arguing that there isn't a "slow shutdown issue"?

No, I don't believe anyone has suggested that. What has been suggested is that it is a 'universal' problem. Which it clearly isn't.

iLog.Genius
May 2, 2013, 01:17 AM
No, I don't believe anyone has suggested that. What has been suggested is that it is a 'universal' problem. Which it clearly isn't.

Of the 8 Macs in the family and the 4 from friends, all 12 have this shutdown issue where it goes to a white screen with the spinning gear before actually shutting down. I've also experienced this with a clean install so between all 12 Macs and a clean install, this happens, it's safe to say it's something to do with the OS.

I'm not going to sit here and say that this "issue" is universal because that would be assuming 100% of all Lion or Mountain Lion users would have this problem, I would have no way of determining this but based on the 12 I've seen do this and the numerous threads here and on the Apple Support forums, there is a significant amount so while it's unknown if 100% have this issue, it's there.

If you get a white screen with the spinning gear before it actually shuts down, you have this "issue". Is this intended? No one knows but Apple, but it's definitely not the same as Snow Leopard where the shutdown would be instantaneous after the desktop disappears.

MrNomNoms
May 2, 2013, 01:25 AM
No, I don't believe anyone has suggested that. What has been suggested is that it is a 'universal' problem. Which it clearly isn't.

And more importantly what annoys someone doesn't mean that it is a bug. When I shut down my computer I some times find it fast and other times I find it slow - things are occurring in the background but it seems that there are people here who deliberately ignore genuinely useful posts in favour of continuually whining because they like the sound of their own voice. Yes the slow shut down does occur but there is a reason for that - it isn't a bug, it is operating as it was designed.

iBug2
May 2, 2013, 01:56 AM
Slow shutdown being universal or not depends on how we define a slow shutdown. My rMBP shuts down in 20-25 sec or so but I don't remember my macs ever shutting down instantly with 10.8 or 10.7 or 10.6 or 10.5. Sometimes I get 4 sec shutdowns on the same machine but I don't expect them every time just because it is possible.

iLog.Genius
May 2, 2013, 02:03 AM
I really wish there was a three strikes and you're banned policy on Macrumors so we wouldn't morons chock up the forum with idiotically stupid comments and keep raising the same stupid crap over and over again. It reminds me of this idiot not too long ago claiming there was no OpenGL 3.x in OS X no matter how many times people posted screen shots of OpenGL Extensions Viewer and showing that person how one could see the results - yet he continues posting his crap to this forum.

HAHAHA I remember that thread. :D

LV426
May 2, 2013, 05:19 AM
Cached is set to no.

That's a real pity. Because it's the one thing above anything else that would dramatically speed up Safari. It would indeed be "snappier" if it cached content correctly.

DMH3006
May 2, 2013, 06:05 AM
Memory usage in Safari is improved again,it slowly releases memory from closed tabs(hey its better than before where it would just move it to inactive and not release it).

MacsRgr8
May 2, 2013, 06:12 AM
Except for the small fact that the console logs show that Apple processes' have failed to shutdown during the exit time out interval, requiring the OS to force quit them, i.e. to "kill them" as the logs report. In other, more simple, words: the computer isn't shutting down the processes properly. This isn't a feature and has nothing to do with maintenance, spotlight, third party apps, etc. The OS has asked those system processes to shutdown and they haven't responded, and thus they ended up being "killed" by the OS, meaning whatever it was they were doing it was cut off before finishing.

The only reasonable explanation I've seen is that there is some bug causing a few of these processes not to respond and it requires fixing. This doesn't have to do with restoring apps, auto-saving, etc. as is evidenced by the fact that even though the system force quit those processes, none of those features not present in 10.6 are adversely affected. Many of us have changed the time out interval to quicken the process with no noticeable differences. In other words, we kill the process after 1 second rather than 20. Apple has it at 20 seconds to make sure if the process does respond, it'll have time to close properly. But that isn't happening anyway.

Thanks for the explanation!

ghostface147
May 2, 2013, 08:22 AM
Slow shutdown being universal or not depends on how we define a slow shutdown. My rMBP shuts down in 20-25 sec or so but I don't remember my macs ever shutting down instantly with 10.8 or 10.7 or 10.6 or 10.5. Sometimes I get 4 sec shutdowns on the same machine but I don't expect them every time just because it is possible.

For me 10.8.1. was the fastest shutdown. It would shutdown in about 6 seconds. Now it takes about 20, which was the same for 10.8, 10.8.2 and 10.8.3.

LV426
May 2, 2013, 08:47 AM
Thanks for the explanation!

Careful, now...

Once upon a time, a man put some toast in his toaster. It took a minute to do its thing. And it provided lovely nice crunchy toast.

But the man got impatient with all the hanging about and decided it would be a great idea to hit the toaster with a sledgehammer after 30 seconds, so he could get his toast out a bit sooner. Heck, if the toaster could switch itself off after 1 minute, why couldn't he?

Success! The toaster even 'worked' on a few occasions after that.

The man didn't really understand why the toaster was taking so long. He knew it was something to do with heat, or network connectivity, or iCloud synchronisation, or the type of bread, or maybe even something else far too technical to worry about. But he hit it anyway, because he really was a very impatient man. And the toast looked and tasted sort of OK. Toast version 10.8 should be exactly like Toast version 10.6, shouldn't it? I mean, heaven forbid, the toaster wouldn't be doing things all day long that make life a bit quicker, that need a bit of extra sorting out when the Toast button is hit, would it?

But one day, a piece of toast shot out and hit him in the eye with a message on it saying that 'file permissions on toast/donotbashme' were incorrect, and the filing system needed to be repaired.

"Oh, bugger!" said the man. "I need to hit it a bit sooner next time."

Michael Goff
May 2, 2013, 09:19 AM
Or conversely, you'd think after 6 updates everything would be silky smooth. How bad of a state was 10.8 to begin with? I guess we should be highly enthusiastic that 10.9 might be somewhat functional 6 updates after it's initial release?

I'd love if it was silky smooth by now, I was simply saying that it isn't the lack of updates.

RedRaven571
May 2, 2013, 09:31 AM
Careful, now...

Once upon a time, a man put some toast in his toaster. It took a minute to do its thing. And it provided lovely nice crunchy toast.

But the man got impatient with all the hanging about and decided it would be a great idea to hit the toaster with a sledgehammer after 30 seconds, so he could get his toast out a bit sooner. Heck, if the toaster could switch itself off after 1 minute, why couldn't he?

Success! The toaster even 'worked' on a few occasions after that.

The man didn't really understand why the toaster was taking so long. He knew it was something to do with heat, or network connectivity, or iCloud synchronisation, or the type of bread, or maybe even something else far too technical to worry about. But he hit it anyway, because he really was a very impatient man. And the toast looked and tasted sort of OK. Toast version 10.8 should be exactly like Toast version 10.6, shouldn't it? I mean, heaven forbid, the toaster wouldn't be doing things all day long that make life a bit quicker, that need a bit of extra sorting out when the Toast button is hit, would it?

But one day, a piece of toast shot out and hit him in the eye with a message on it saying that 'file permissions on toast/donotbashme' were incorrect, and the filing system needed to be repaired.

"Oh, bugger!" said the man. "I need to hit it a bit sooner next time."

Nice parable. We who have slow shut down times (and boot up times too)with 10.8 want our new toaster to make the same quality toast, in the same amount of time, as our old toaster, preferably without having to rewire the outlet.

I don't think that is expecting too much, is it?

Bradamante
May 2, 2013, 09:41 AM
Wow, get of your arrogant high-horse. Yes, there's a lot of irrational insecurity going around especially among not so tech-savvy Mac users, but this is not it. Slow shutdown phenomenon starting with X.8.2 is a well-researched problem that many people hoped would be fixed with 8.3. I administer about 60 Macs at a university, and they all have the same problem with different hardware setups. People say it is a change in Mac OS X event handling that came about in 8.2. On machines where I installed 8.3 shutdown times were cut in half, but still longer that 8.0 or 8.1.

Rubbish. It's not a universal problem. People with slow shutdowns will complain about it, and those without will not. The former are a vocal minority. If, for any reason, later builds do happen to be slower, have you considered for a moment that there might well be a very good reason for it? A reason that is not related to impatience?

At the risk of repeating myself, there are tools available to see exactly what your machine is up to when it shuts down. Such logs are there to cater for users who have problems with their setup. If you can be bothered to look into it. Which I can't, because my laptop shuts down lickety-split, thank you very much.

LV426
May 2, 2013, 10:10 AM
Slow shutdown phenomenon starting with X.8.2 is a well-researched problem that many people hoped would be fixed with 8.3. I administer about 60 Macs at a university, and they all have the same problem with different hardware setups.

You are funny. You really are. Tell me why, exactly, is it a "problem" for computers to take as long as they need to in order to shutdown properly? You have intimate knowledge, I suppose, as to what the shutdown code is doing in the operating system. Well, do you?

----------

Nice parable. We who have slow shut down times (and boot up times too)with 10.8 want our new toaster to make the same quality toast, in the same amount of time, as our old toaster, preferably without having to rewire the outlet.

I don't think that is expecting too much, is it?

Read the bit about "not understanding what's going on" again. It's not the same toast.

Michael Goff
May 2, 2013, 10:28 AM
"The shutdown is slow"

"Then don't shut it down"

Brilliant solution. Next thing it will be is "X program takes forever to open up" (it could be Safari or calendar or mail) and the solution will be "then don't shut it down ever".

JohnDoe98
May 2, 2013, 10:42 AM
You are funny. You really are. Tell me why, exactly, is it a "problem" for computers to take as long as they need to in order to shutdown properly? You have intimate knowledge, I suppose, as to what the shutdown code is doing in the operating system. Well, do you?

Why does Apple kill the processes at 20 seconds rather than let them "take as long as they need in order to shutdown properly"? Here's a hint, because if a process or app has hung, it might never shut down properly without the OS force quitting it. Apple figures 20 seconds is a reasonable time to wait for a response before killing it.

Now, if your console log shows that every single time you shutdown certain tasks are crashing and requiring them to be killed, then waiting 19 extra seconds is useless since the records show they will not respond within the given time interval anyway.

I'm all for letting systems take as long as they need to shut down properly, and that is exactly why I'd like Apple to fix things so when I open up my console there are no error logs. Then we wouldn't have cause to complain about slow shutdowns because the system is doing whatever it is supposed to do. But when there are error logs pointing to specific tasks that are not shutting down properly, and the slow response has been shown to be caused by those specific tasks, you can't tell me there isn't something wrong with them and that everything is normal. Error logs are not "normal" behavior, they are there to help diagnose a problem.

RedRaven571
May 2, 2013, 11:03 AM
Read the bit about "not understanding what's going on" again. It's not the same toast.

Actually, I went back and reread it, just to amuse myself.

It's the same hardware, apps, and files (let's call that the toast). My old toaster (SL) makes perfectly browned, yummy toast in 2-3 seconds (with a 7200RPM HDD, by the way, not a SDD); the new toaster (ML) takes 30+ seconds to make the same brown, yummy toast.

Now, my new toaster (ML) has some cool new features on it, including interconnectivity with my microwave (iPhone) and oven (iPad) that allows me to follow how my toast is coming along, by looking at these other devices and let's me see on my toaster how the roast is progessing in the oven, but I still want my toast to be ready in the same amount of time (perfectly brown and yummy, too).

Not only that, but I don't want my new toaster to go to sleep partially through the toasting cycle because it incorrectly thinks there is no toast in the slot (I'm referring to ML's propensity to sleep, even during critical operations like transcoding a file, or burning a disk); my old toaster (SL, if you're still following along) wouldn't sleep until after the toast was finished and browned to perfection.

Unless you mean that the hardware, apps and files are the TOASTER and the OS is the TOAST; or is SL BREAD and ML is a BAGEL, or is it a WAFFLE?!

The point being that, all other things being equal, many of us (not you, so it is not universal) have issues with the boot and shut down times of ML vs SL, along with some other quirks. I don't understand why you are so adamant in telling everyone that it is not ML, it's something else.

Bradamante
May 2, 2013, 11:08 AM
Thanks. But I'm not even saying it's a problem. It's a fact, or a phenomenon. No, I don't have intimate knowledge, I just read log files and forum threads, like you do. I assume that Apple changed the timeout policy, and propably for good reasons. Amond the hardware setups I work with, I see no difference in shutdown behavior or log prints depending on hard disc type, graphics card type, Apple hardware or Hackintosh, offline or online machine. So I assume those factors can be ruled out and a changed timeout policy fits the facts from my perspective.

Your toaster metaphor doesn't work here. At least tech-savvy mac users experiencing this phenomenon wouldn't complain for shutdown procedures taking longer if there was a good reason. Nobody complains about procedures having changed from X.6 to X.8 just because of that. Yet the OS not shutting down processes properly is something to take note off.

Again, get off your cock-sure knot-it-all attitude and don't always assume the worst about people you don't know posting on forums.

You are funny. You really are. Tell me why, exactly, is it a "problem" for computers to take as long as they need to in order to shutdown properly? You have intimate knowledge, I suppose, as to what the shutdown code is doing in the operating system. Well, do you?

----------



Read the bit about "not understanding what's going on" again. It's not the same toast.

bedifferent
May 2, 2013, 12:30 PM
Actually, I went back and reread it, just to amuse myself.

I love you for this post. Thank you so much for a clever and well written point! :)

----------

You are funny. You really are. Tell me why, exactly, is it a "problem" for computers to take as long as they need to in order to shutdown properly? You have intimate knowledge, I suppose, as to what the shutdown code is doing in the operating system. Well, do you?[COLOR="#808080"]

Read the bit about "not understanding what's going on" again. It's not the same toast.

The general community may appreciate your comments if you would show some mutual respect and decency. Insulting others invalidates any points you may attempt to convey. It irks me when a perfectly informative and civil thread is derailed by immature and disrespectful individuals who use the anonymity of the internet as a shield to deflect personal integrity. The idiom "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" rings especially true in these instances, with all due respect.

milo
May 2, 2013, 12:37 PM
No, I don't believe anyone has suggested that. What has been suggested is that it is a 'universal' problem. Which it clearly isn't.

OK, you win. "Universal" means it happens on 100% of machines, which may not be the case. It's probably not literally "universal", more like extremely widespread. Still definitely a problem with the OS and not user specific though.


Yes the slow shut down does occur but there is a reason for that - it isn't a bug, it is operating as it was designed.

People have actually tracked what the system is doing during shutdown, and things are just hanging and the system gives them time to end before finally killing them off. Nothing useful is happening during that time, it most certainly is a bug. And by your logic, when 10.6 shuts down dramatically faster, are you saying there's something wrong with that? Or somehow both a 4 second and a 20 second shutdown are both "as designed" even though there's no advantage to the slower one?

Read the post from johndoe above.


Once upon a time, a man put some toast in his toaster. It took a minute to do its thing. And it provided lovely nice crunchy toast.

But then all of a sudden it took two minutes to make toast with the exact same result. And the man was a toaster sycophant and insisted that that was how it was designed to work. The end.


Fixed that for you.

RedRaven571
May 2, 2013, 01:06 PM
quote:
Originally Posted by lv426
once upon a time, a man put some toast in his toaster. It took a minute to do its thing. And it provided lovely nice crunchy toast.

But then all of a sudden it took two minutes to make toast with the exact same result. And the man was a toaster sycophant and insisted that that was how it was designed to work. The end.



Fixed that for you.

lol!

saturnotaku
May 2, 2013, 01:23 PM
Toaster Sycophant would be an awesome name for a band.

koban4max
May 2, 2013, 05:28 PM
Yeah, you'd think that there was 10.8.1, 10.8.2, two supplemental updates to 10.8.2, 10.8.3, and now 10.8.4 being tested.

That's only 6 updates in less than a year. They should be up to 10.8.18 or something by now.

:rolleyes:

need more effective updates...not mumble jumbo updates.

jozeppy26
May 2, 2013, 11:10 PM
410710

beestigbeestje
May 3, 2013, 03:45 AM
my rmbp still fails to connect to my router after sleep. Only happens on my Belgacom B-Box router. I always have to restart to get back on the internet, this has been sinds 10.8.0
And now that the 2 second shut down is gone, it is very irritating.

LV426
May 3, 2013, 05:44 AM
People have actually tracked what the system is doing during shutdown, and things are just hanging and the system gives them time to end before finally killing them off.

OK, so which process is it that has the propensity to stall? Let's take it from there.

LV426
May 3, 2013, 05:56 AM
The general community may appreciate your comments if you would show some mutual respect and decency. Insulting others invalidates any points you may attempt to convey. It irks me when a perfectly informative and civil thread is derailed by immature and disrespectful individuals who use the anonymity of the internet as a shield to deflect personal integrity. The idiom "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" rings especially true in these instances, with all due respect.

Sorry, but when people assert that there are universal problems caused by a shutdown bug when they are not aware of a) the true number of affected user, b) what the code is doing and c) extraneous factors, they need to take stock of their own arrogance.

If you really want to 'fix' a slow shutdown, in the first case identify the process that is taking the longest to close and establish if there is any commonality across users.

Of course, it's a lot lot easier just to moan that there's a shutdown bug.

JohnDoe98
May 3, 2013, 08:12 AM
OK, so which process is it that has the propensity to stall? Let's take it from there.

com.apple.coreservices.appleevents
com.apple.securityd
com.apple.launchd
com.apple.coremedia.videodecoder

These are the most common ones.

saturnotaku
May 3, 2013, 08:29 AM
Of course, it's a lot lot easier just to moan that there's a shutdown bug.

Easier still is to assert that because you don't have a problem that one doesn't exist and act like a raging jackwagon while doing so.

milo
May 3, 2013, 09:06 AM
Sorry, but when people assert that there are universal problems caused by a shutdown bug when they are not aware of a) the true number of affected user, b) what the code is doing and c) extraneous factors

Sorry, but when people have done exactly what you just said and you have been too ignorant and lazy to find that out before spouting off, you need to take stock of your own arrogance.

RedRaven571
May 3, 2013, 11:00 AM
Easier still is to assert that because you don't have a problem that one doesn't exist and act like a raging jackwagon while doing so.

BTW Raging Jackwagon = another great band name....:D

----------

Sorry, but when people have done exactly what you just said and you have been too ignorant and lazy to find that out before spouting off, you need to take stock of your own arrogance.

He's just PO'd that his toaster went beserk and provided nothing but burnt muffins and prune jelly this morning........

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But, to go back to the earlier question, has anyone who has experienced slow shut downs with 10.8.1-10.8.3 applied the new beta and noticed any difference?

saturnotaku
May 3, 2013, 11:19 AM
Just to add, I do experience slow shutdowns in ML and have since 10.8.1. It's been better with 10.8.3 in that such incidents are less frequent. Sometimes my MBP shuts down immediately, sometimes it doesn't. Generously, I'd estimate 50/50.

My Core2 Duo iMac at work runs 10.6.8 and with a lot more software installed, it shuts down instantly 99 times out of 100.

ItWasNotMe
May 3, 2013, 11:43 AM
OK, so which process is it that has the propensity to stall? Let's take it from there.
Time Machine when its having a sulk, such as
- Its given up (shows 'Backing up n of m' for hours where n and m never change) because its backing up two external drives and one has gone to sleep while its backing up the other
- If you start two (new) processes in quick succession while its 'cleaning up'
- If its been 'looking for the backup disk' for an hour plus
- If you have manually stopped it when any of the above are true
- In these cases only way to close down is pull the power plug
- And yes all reported to Apple

Mail
- Cancels the shutdown c5% of the time - note the word cancel - means you can't just tell the machine to shut down and walk away
- On no occasion has there been an incoming or outgoing mail for it to process
- Some argue this is "addressed" (see other threads) and is 'as designed' and so ok
- I argue that poor design is still poor design

ctakah
May 6, 2013, 02:23 AM
I just wanted to let everyone know that I haven't seen the slow shutdown issue on my rMBP and iMac on any stages of ML. I do put a lot of load on the machines reboot rarely, creative suite with lots of PS & AE plugins, video editors, office software, 2 browsers with 10s of tabs open, a bunch of little helper programs in the menu bar, font server, ftp and afp/smb connections, email, always have a bunch of drives and other devices plugged into ports etc. I do have the facebook integration on but no icloud sync. Usually takes 4-8 sec to shut down, but I do, as a habit, always close all the applications that were running before I restart or shut down the machines. Even with all this other ballast from the screenshot it works well. Safari does struggle on videoblogs though... thx

mag01
May 7, 2013, 08:20 AM
I just wanted to let everyone know that I haven't seen the slow shutdown issue on my rMBP and iMac on any stages of ML... I think nobody says it affects everyone without any exceptions. Though I'm also the one affected. 11" MBA 2012 and it doesn't matter whether I close all apps before shutdown or not, doesn't matter if I use the "reopen" option or not, or if I'm connected anywhere or completely offline...
In my case the processes that often don't terminate cleanly are:

com.apple.coreservices.appleevents
com.apple.securityd
com.apple.dock.extra

And while I'm able to set shorter ExitTimeOut for the first 2, I don't know where to find the right place for the 3rd one (tried several launch plists related to Dock but none of them worked for com.apple.dock.extra process).

It seems to be better with this 10.8.4 beta build but it's early to make any conclusions.

milo
May 8, 2013, 03:24 PM
12E47 just went out.