PDA

View Full Version : Mac OS X 10.4.9 (8P2111) Seeded to Developers




MacRumors
Dec 21, 2006, 07:49 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Apple has seeded Mac OS X 10.4.9 (8P2111) to developers tonight. The newest version of Tiger (10.4) promises fixes to a number of areas.

A number of fixes have been documented. Among those, include bugs wtih Sync Service Engine, rsync and extended attributes, .Mac Sync, Rosetta, USB Modem and caller ID, Bluetooth device pairing, USB modem busy tone detection, QC Engine, Core Graphics and HID Manager, PDFKit and MallocGuardEdges, and Automator Actions.

Meanwhile, Apple asks developers to stress certain areas for testing beyond those described in the bug fixes. These areas include Adobe Flash, bash, bind, Bonjour, Dashboard Widgets, FireWire, Fonts, gnutar, Graphics, and iChat Video Conferencing.

Apple last publicly updated Tiger (10.4.x) on September 29th, 2006 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060929143457.shtml).

[[ digg this (http://digg.com/apple/Mac_OS_X_10_4_9_8P2111_Seeded_to_Developers) ]]



SkyBell
Dec 21, 2006, 07:51 PM
Wow, I was wrong (no surprise :)) I thought they weren't going to release another version. But They actually did it. I wonder when it's released to the public?

evilgEEk
Dec 21, 2006, 07:52 PM
Well, it's good to see the last version of Tiger out the door. Now make room for Leopard at MWSF '07!! :D:D:D

Chundles
Dec 21, 2006, 07:58 PM
Well, it's good to see the last version of Tiger out the door. Now make room for Leopard at MWSF '07!! :D:D:D

Heh... No.

Wow, I was wrong (no surprise :)) I thought they weren't going to release another version. But They actually did it. I wonder when it's released to the public?

Most likely it'll be about a month till we see 10.4.9 in Software Update - so sometime after MWSF to allow any new hardware to speak to our current Macs.

fenixx
Dec 21, 2006, 08:02 PM
...eh... about to download...

...this where they break tiger so that we truly appreciate leopard.

mkrishnan
Dec 21, 2006, 08:04 PM
Oooh, rsync merits attention in a dot upgrade to OS X? Niiiice! :)

Morris
Dec 21, 2006, 08:09 PM
Wow, I was wrong (no surprise :)) I thought they weren't going to release another version.
Since the release date for Leopard is "spring", which could technically very well mean June actually, I expect at least a 10.4.10 after this, maybe even a last 10.4.11 around the time Leopard comes out.

Didn't Panther get a last update after or around the time Tiger came out?

Mgkwho
Dec 21, 2006, 08:16 PM
I would hope Apple could to math and realize their naming scheme would end at 4.9.

-=|Mgkwho

QCassidy352
Dec 21, 2006, 08:17 PM
I hope that when they say "bluetooth device pairing" they mean that they're going to fix it so that non-apple bluetooth devices can wake the computer without waking it from sleep repeatedly and unintentionally...

kresh
Dec 21, 2006, 08:19 PM
I would hope Apple could to math and realize their naming scheme would end at 4.9.

-=|Mgkwho

But the decimals are not used as a numbering system. Since the decimal is not a number it could go to 10.4.29 or higher, as the number 29 indicates 29 patches or fixes.(it certainly beats: OSX 10, Version 4, patch 9)

Why is this brought up so much?

zwida
Dec 21, 2006, 08:22 PM
I would hope Apple could to math and realize their naming scheme would end at 4.9.

-=|Mgkwho

You might enjoy this aging thread:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=116685&page=3

and especially this bit of wisdom:

(from 03-23-2005, 09:25 AM)
after 10.3.9 comes 10.3.10 ...

If you didn't already get this, get it into your head that the point is NOT A DECIMAL POINT it's just a number separator, kind of like 10|3|9. There's no such thing as a number with two decimal points.

Please accept this and tell all your friends so that we don't have to go through this for every story of an OS or software update with version numbers approaching 10.

Edit: Ok, maybe I should have flipped over from page 2 to page 3 before pressing reply ... This seems to have been covered.

So ... why no release notes on differences just between 10.3.8 and 10.3.9?

Right, what Kresh said.

Morris
Dec 21, 2006, 08:25 PM
Hhmm, I actually assumed -=|Mgkwho was just kidding, saying that...

D34thPwny
Dec 21, 2006, 08:31 PM
Hey, whatever dudes, at least we're (theoretically) getting a further improved Tiger soon, and one step closer to Leopard, right?

ricksbrain
Dec 21, 2006, 08:38 PM
I'm beginning to think that 10.5 is going to be released with Vista. Apple may be leveraging its press.

I like it.

hob
Dec 21, 2006, 08:44 PM
This looks like it may well be the last version of 10.4. Whilst I agree about the fact that they could go to 10.4.10, history is against us with this one.

Also, the fact they've asked developers to flesh out certain areas makes me think they want this to be the "definitive" version of Tiger.

Has anyone else noticed that when watching anything flash-based in safari... If you deselect that window, the framerate goes down by at least 50%...

Hopefully they're fixing that! It'd make my week!

dashiel
Dec 21, 2006, 08:56 PM
I'm beginning to think that 10.5 is going to be released with Vista. Apple may be leveraging its press.

I like it.

no way. vista, technically, is already released. it's certainly RTM and well beyond gold master.

10.5 hasn't even reached release candidate status yet. i don't think we'll see it until april or may.

i also suspect macworld is going to release some pretty significant upgrades. time machine and spaces, while unequivocally cool and fairly hefty programming challenges are built upon existing unix applications/services.

ditto the ichat, calendar, spotlight, safari and mail enhancements. all are nice new features, but definitely doable within a typical 18 month product cycle.

64bit support, resolution independent UI and core animation all strike me as technology that has been under development prior to 10.4 so while those are very challenging projects it seems apple has been working on them for 36+ months.

i don't know what they're going to do, but a new UI seems a safe bet. a new finder doesn't seem too preposterous either. based on the note here about specifically testing out adobe flash, i have a feeling that we might see some sort of advanced integration with apollo to help counter windows' WPF thing. maybe even native support for actionscript (e.g. python and ruby)? yikes! that would be so cool.

AlBDamned
Dec 21, 2006, 08:57 PM
I'm beginning to think that 10.5 is going to be released with Vista. Apple may be leveraging its press.

I like it.

There's not been enough publicity for a full, retail launch for Leopard at MWSF. Perhaps we'll get a launch date that coincides with Vista as you're saying as that might be enough time. I doubt it though. We'll probs just see more of it. The hype around Tiger's launch date went on for months IIRC.

And yeah, will the decimal point pedants get out of here and realise that that argument has been done and dusted a long, long time ago.

Morris
Dec 21, 2006, 08:58 PM
This looks like it may well be the last version of 10.4. Whilst I agree about the fact that they could go to 10.4.10, history is against us with this one.
Well, history is telling us the last version number is getting higher and higher. Previous last versions:
10.0.4
10.1.5
10.2.8
10.3.9
They never use the same last number twice! :D


Also, the fact they've asked developers to flesh out certain areas makes me think they want this to be the "definitive" version of Tiger.
That's standard procedure, they fiddle with some code and ask testers to focus on that changed part. They've asked similar questions each update.

failsafe1
Dec 21, 2006, 09:02 PM
Cool. I would not have thought there would be another version this close to 10.5 Bring it on I love them software updates.

MikeTheC
Dec 21, 2006, 09:03 PM
I'm glad that Apple's continuing to update Tiger. I don't really understand why anyone would have a problem with this.

Chundles
Dec 21, 2006, 09:04 PM
Cool. I would not have thought there would be another version this close to 10.5 Bring it on I love them software updates.

3+ months isn't all that close. We could still see another point release to Tiger before Leopard lobs.

iMeowbot
Dec 21, 2006, 09:11 PM
I hope I hope I hope the rsync and tar fixes will deal with the ACL problems.

rtdunham
Dec 21, 2006, 09:19 PM
...It's bad enough I have to deal with Spanish-speaking immigrant customers where I work: the last thing I want or need is to have the language shoved in my face while I'm trying to enjoy this web site.

so what group, exactly, DO you Gallifreyans get along with? Or tolerate? Must be lonely out there, compadre.

tuartboy
Dec 21, 2006, 09:19 PM
I'm beginning to think that 10.5 is going to be released with Vista. Apple may be leveraging its press.

I like it.

They won't try releasing near Vista. Release before Vista and everyone talks about you until the end of Jan and then they forget about you. Release right after and you look like you are trying too hard to do a "me too". Apple will wait it out and release as soon as the hubub about Vista dies down so people will look at it and go "hey, this is much better" and it will make OS X the most up-to-date system.

scott523
Dec 21, 2006, 09:24 PM
Darn, this means the chance of Leopard at MWSF '07 had gone out the window but still...bring in the updates---Leopard or not!

Chundles
Dec 21, 2006, 09:26 PM
Darn, this means the chance of Leopard at MWSF '07 had gone out the window but still...bring in the updates---Leopard or not!

It was never going to be released at MWSF. That should have been obvious from at least WWDC this year - there's a lot of work yet to be done.

MWSF will have a big preview, no release, no shipping date announced, just a big preview.

iMacZealot
Dec 21, 2006, 10:04 PM
To my memory, I remember 10.3.9 being released a few days after they announced the 10.4 shipping date. Now, I'm with Chundles. We'll probably see a 10.4.10. On the other hand, though, Apple seems to want devs to thoroughly review everything about 10.4.9. Nevertheless, I doubt we'll be using 10.4.9 until April (that's my guess when it comes out.)

EDIT: 10.3.9 was released on 4.15.06; 10.4.0 was released on 4.29.06.

MikeTheC
Dec 21, 2006, 10:18 PM
so what group, exactly, DO you Gallifreyans get along with? Or tolerate? Must be lonely out there, compadre.

Well, for the longest time outworlders were forbidden to visit Gallifrey proper, and throughout the millenia our alliances and partnerships flourished.

Then, someone got the bright idea to invite Daleks over for tea. They kept shouting "¡Usted será exterminado!" Oh well, now Gallifrey makes the Alderaan star system look like a picnic!

:)

puckhead193
Dec 21, 2006, 10:35 PM
yay! so no more safari crashes :D

Mgkwho
Dec 21, 2006, 10:56 PM
everybody-

Just because software versions aren't numbered normally, does not mean I can't hope that they will be.

For people to SHOUT and reference crap over something that's not to be taken seriously is a little bit over the top, don't you think?

You all take using a computer waaaaaaaaay too seriously.

Zwida, you might enjoy a little laughter once and a while. You take all the fun out of being a fanboy.

-=|Mgkwho

projectle
Dec 21, 2006, 11:12 PM
This is one of those holy crap moments,

.Mac Sync actually works at synchronizing your data between Tiger and Leopard systems. Try it out! You'll love it.

EricNau
Dec 21, 2006, 11:45 PM
This better fix the problem with Safari regarding flash and drop down menus.

For example, on BestBuy.com (http://www.bestbuy.com/), when you try and select an item from a drop down menu (such as Software under Computers), the menu flickers or disappears.

...Drives me crazy.

iJawn108
Dec 22, 2006, 12:02 AM
everybody-

Just because software versions aren't numbered normally, does not mean I can't hope that they will be.

For people to SHOUT and reference crap over something that's not to be taken seriously is a little bit over the top, don't you think?

You all take using a computer waaaaaaaaay too seriously.

Zwida, you might enjoy a little laughter once and a while. You take all the fun out of being a fanboy.

-=|MgkwhoI quite honestly like how apples updates are labeled, they make much more sense to me than MS's

iJawn108
Dec 22, 2006, 12:06 AM
This better fix the problem with Safari regarding flash and drop down menus.

For example, on BestBuy.com (http://www.bestbuy.com/), when you try and select an item from a drop down menu (such as Software under Computers), the menu flickers or disappears.

...Drives me crazy.

works fine for me, but i notice sometimes my curser disapears on pages with flash. That bothers the hell out of me

Rocketman
Dec 22, 2006, 12:07 AM
I for one like how they specify areas for further work. As a bug-finder, this is a really helpful thing.

I am not lucky enough to find very many actual bugs (first).

Rocketman

iMacZealot
Dec 22, 2006, 12:42 AM
This better fix the problem with Safari regarding flash and drop down menus.

For example, on BestBuy.com (http://www.bestbuy.com/), when you try and select an item from a drop down menu (such as Software under Computers), the menu flickers or disappears.

...Drives me crazy.

Yeah, that happens to me a LOT on many sites. It requires some curved learning to do.

EricNau
Dec 22, 2006, 01:01 AM
I am not lucky enough to find very many actual bugs (first).

Here's One...

This better fix the problem with Safari regarding flash and drop down menus.

For example, on BestBuy.com (http://www.bestbuy.com/), when you try and select an item from a drop down menu (such as Software under Computers), the menu flickers or disappears.

...Drives me crazy.

;)

stingerman
Dec 22, 2006, 01:54 AM
10.4.9 followed by 10.4.X

DaveTheGrey
Dec 22, 2006, 02:22 AM
Has anyone else noticed that when watching anything flash-based in safari... If you deselect that window, the framerate goes down by at least 50%...

Hopefully they're fixing that! It'd make my week!

try this one:
http://www.steelskies.com/article/46/star-performer-safari-plugin

Dave

peeInMyPantz
Dec 22, 2006, 02:22 AM
i hope there will be A2DP support for bluetooth..

netdog
Dec 22, 2006, 02:45 AM
Where is the support for N? iTV is now days away.

Compile 'em all
Dec 22, 2006, 02:55 AM
Has Apple ever released a 10.x.x.x incremental update or did they always stick with 10.x.x numbering scheme?. My point is what would happen if they release 10.4.9 then there is some major bug that news an additional update, will that mean they will put out a 10.4.9.1 update?

TheNightPhoenix
Dec 22, 2006, 03:25 AM
Has Apple ever released a 10.x.x.x incremental update or did they always stick with 10.x.x numbering scheme?. My point is what would happen if they release 10.4.9 then there is some major bug that news an additional update, will that mean they will put out a 10.4.9.1 update?

Most likely it would be put out as a security update. If you look at your updates, lots of security updates and component updates come along such as java and airport. They are later bundle as a 10.x.x update with additional changes.

Eraserhead
Dec 22, 2006, 03:51 AM
To my memory, I remember 10.3.9 being released a few days after they announced the 10.4 shipping date. Now, I'm with Chundles. We'll probably see a 10.4.10. On the other hand, though, Apple seems to want devs to thoroughly review everything about 10.4.9. Nevertheless, I doubt we'll be using 10.4.9 until April (that's my guess when it comes out.)

EDIT: 10.3.9 was released on 4.15.06; 10.4.0 was released on 4.29.06.

I think we will see a 10.4.10, they like to release a final update close to shipping of the new OS to ensure compatability.
(as they did with 10.3.9 and 10.2.8) (see wikipedia articles for the OS X versions).

iMacZealot
Dec 22, 2006, 04:06 AM
Has Apple ever released a 10.x.x.x incremental update or did they always stick with 10.x.x numbering scheme?. My point is what would happen if they release 10.4.9 then there is some major bug that news an additional update, will that mean they will put out a 10.4.9.1 update?


Not in that way, but there have been some things like that:
Mac OS 9.0.4 v2
System 7.0.1P
System 7.1.2P
System 7.5.3 Revision 2
System 7.5.3 Revision 2.1
System 7.5.3 Revision 2.2

And there were a few others, but I can't remember. I want to say that I read something about a Mac OS X release with a v2 after it, but I can't remember which one.

JFreak
Dec 22, 2006, 04:44 AM
I think we will see a 10.4.10

I sure hope so. That should put an end to the "10.x.9 is the last version so we will see the new OS sooooooon" whining. Until they do, people cannot understand that the release number is not a decimal number; or, that the "ten" can be omitted and thus say "the current Macintosh version is OSX 4.8" because the OSX and ten-dot mean exactly the same thing.

Sheesh, I'm so tired about this. Hopefully Apple puts this topic to rest just as they buried the "PowerBook G5 next tuesday" with the Intel announcement ;)

richinspace
Dec 22, 2006, 05:16 AM
Any news about an upgrade of iSync with "m-router support" for Symbian phones via Bluetooth? This is desperately needed by all Sony-Ericsson P990 owners (and others).

Killyp
Dec 22, 2006, 05:27 AM
I hope they fix the serious networking issues in Tiger. Sometimes, no network items appear at all for me, and other Macs often don't appear at all in the network area, while Windows shares do.

Also, if I try and eject a network drive because it isn't reachable (such as the other machine has been shut down, or I've turned off my wifi), then the whole machine crashes, and it's the same for everyone else I know who's on Tiger.

Not what I'd expect from a computer costing me £1500, FIX IT PLEASE APPLE!

Diatribe
Dec 22, 2006, 05:44 AM
Unless Leopard comes out before april this won't be the last update to Tiger.

Morris
Dec 22, 2006, 06:09 AM
They won't try releasing near Vista. Release before Vista and everyone talks about you until the end of Jan and then they forget about you. Release right after and you look like you are trying too hard to do a "me too". Apple will wait it out and release as soon as the hubub about Vista dies down so people will look at it and go "hey, this is much better" and it will make OS X the most up-to-date system.

Exactly! Release just before Vista and the excitement lasts a few days, until Vista comes out. Release just after Vista and there will be hardly any excitement because all the focus will be on the OS 90% of the world uses. Release at least a month (or maybe two) after Vista and OS X could be the answer for the people that ended up being disappointed with Vista.

As far as I can tell now there is nothing in Leopard I can't wait just a couple of months for if it would mean a better OS in the end. Please let Apple don't rush this.

Eraserhead
Dec 22, 2006, 06:11 AM
Also, if I try and eject a network drive because it isn't reachable (such as the other machine has been shut down, or I've turned off my wifi), then the whole machine crashes, and it's the same for everyone else I know who's on Tiger.

If you're patient it does timeout after a while. I do agree the network stuff is a bit rubbish, but it is under Windows too, so Apple doesn't fix it (or maybe it's just very difficult to fix).

Anyway FTFF (Fix the ******* Finder) for Leopard is what I'm hoping for.

eskalation.dk
Dec 22, 2006, 06:53 AM
I Hope this fixes the banding issues on my MBP, but it probably doesnt

Chundles
Dec 22, 2006, 06:55 AM
I Hope this fixes the banding issues on my MBP, but it probably doesnt

Colour banding? That'd be a hardware problem ol' mate - time to bust out your warranty, that's what they're for.

madmax_2069
Dec 22, 2006, 07:09 AM
i do hope they fix more then they break in 10.4.9, i would love to see allot of stuff fixed in tiger. but i don't really see to much wrong with tiger other then it can get bogged down by something that shouldn't choke a OS like it does

please please apple make tiger what it could bedont make this update worse than 10.4.8 . to me 10.4.8 fixed allot of stuff for me that was either not working in 10.4.7 or barley working that 10.4.8 fixed and made the software work

thewhitehart
Dec 22, 2006, 07:14 AM
10.4.8 destroyed airport on my intel mac. Sure, I sound like a nag, as I go on and on about this, but it is truly inconvenient and annoying having to reboot to fix problems when your only means of connecting to the net is via airport.

Every single solution I've tried hasn't fixed it completely. Please, for the love of mac, fix intel airport in 10.4.9 :(

Diatribe
Dec 22, 2006, 07:21 AM
10.4.8 destroyed airport on my intel mac. Sure, I sound like a nag, as I go on and on about this, but it is truly inconvenient and annoying having to reboot to fix problems when your only means of connecting to the net is via airport.

Every single solution I've tried hasn't fixed it completely. Please, for the love of mac, fix intel airport in 10.4.9 :(

They released an Airport update recently, did you install that yet and see whether it fixes things?

eskalation.dk
Dec 22, 2006, 08:29 AM
Colour banding? That'd be a hardware problem ol' mate - time to bust out your warranty, that's what they're for.

Nono a lot of MBPs has this problem, as far as i am concerned

Chundles
Dec 22, 2006, 08:31 AM
Nono a lot of MBPs has this problem, as far as i am concerned

Yeah, caused by a hardware problem, sounds like a faulty display connector. Why haven't you rung Apple yet to get them to look at it?

aprilfools
Dec 22, 2006, 08:58 AM
This better fix the problem with Safari regarding flash and drop down menus.

For example, on BestBuy.com (http://www.bestbuy.com/), when you try and select an item from a drop down menu (such as Software under Computers), the menu flickers or disappears.

...Drives me crazy.

You shouldnt be looking at Best Buy for software anyway! They don't have software for Macs so whats the point!!

cgc
Dec 22, 2006, 09:48 AM
I would hope Apple could to math and realize their naming scheme would end at 4.9.

-=|Mgkwho

Nooo...not THIS discussion again...argh!

ccunning
Dec 22, 2006, 10:13 AM
everybody-

Just because software versions aren't numbered normally, does not mean I can't hope that they will be.

For people to SHOUT and reference crap over something that's not to be taken seriously is a little bit over the top, don't you think?

You all take using a computer waaaaaaaaay too seriously.

Zwida, you might enjoy a little laughter once and a while. You take all the fun out of being a fanboy.

-=|Mgkwho

Dude, don't be an ass.
You made the same troll yesterday at appleinsider (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=69628).
The troll itself is almost funny, but the fact that you then bitch people out for reacting to it afterwards is obnoxious. Quit it.

Multimedia
Dec 22, 2006, 10:21 AM
I suppose the release of this final decimal point in the Tiger Zone will portend the arrival of Leopard no more than about another 3 months. So this release should happen sometime next month on the way to an early Spring release of our next good buddy complete with top secret surprises for all of us. :D :cool:

Willis
Dec 22, 2006, 10:48 AM
They released an Airport update recently, did you install that yet and see whether it fixes things?

That aiport update is only for portable Intel Macs. I havent updated it yet because Ive heard it hasnt helped some people and made peoples working Airport... not work.

However, I noticed on the MP that I got the update choice from software update

Diatribe
Dec 22, 2006, 11:17 AM
That aiport update is only for portable Intel Macs. I havent updated it yet because Ive heard it hasnt helped some people and made peoples working Airport... not work.

However, I noticed on the MP that I got the update choice from software update

Well, I guess for the people that already have problems it cannot do much worse. :D

Diatribe
Dec 22, 2006, 11:19 AM
Why can't people realize that .9 is NOT necessarily the end of the updates and there could always be a .10 or more?

Is this concept really that hard to grasp? :confused:

imacintel
Dec 22, 2006, 11:23 AM
I just wonder if this is actually necessary to upgrade. The only thing i use for bluetooth is an Apple BT Mouse(non mighty), and I never ues iSyinc which it is suposed to fix. I will download it if it contains security updates meant for all systems, and all users, no matter what you do.

50548
Dec 22, 2006, 11:49 AM
...eh... about to download...

...this where they break tiger so that we truly appreciate leopard.

My only area of complaint for Tiger now is Safari, as it hangs for a while more often than before, when opening some pages...other than that, OS X is simply awesome.

50548
Dec 22, 2006, 11:50 AM
Nooo...not THIS discussion again...argh!

Yep...this discussion is worse than the PB G5 rumors...we might have .10, .11 and whatever...it's not wrong and nobody cares anyway.

Disposition
Dec 22, 2006, 11:56 AM
Thank you. Finally someone said something about this. I thought I was the only one who noticed this...

Dude, don't be an ass.
You made the same troll yesterday at appleinsider (http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=69628).
The troll itself is almost funny, but the fact that you then bitch people out for reacting to it afterwards is obnoxious. Quit it.

GernBlansten
Dec 22, 2006, 12:47 PM
10.4.8 hosed my ability to print from Office and iTunes. No amount of waving the rubber chicken around has fixed it. I'm hoping that 10.4.9 does the trick.

MikeTheC
Dec 22, 2006, 03:43 PM
It's a pity Apple doesn't just use roman numerals for the entire group of segments within their software (and particularly their OS) releases. That way many of us would have the satisfaction of saying "No, there won't be a 10.4.19, there will be a X.IV.XIX release".

So there! Stick that on your mouse button and click it! :)

heisetax
Dec 22, 2006, 11:49 PM
Why can't people realize that .9 is NOT necessarily the end of the updates and there could always be a .10 or more?

Is this concept really that hard to grasp? :confused:



People that think that things have to stop at 10.4.9 should check out the scanner program, VueScan. It is up to version 8.3.86. Maybe we'll start hearing that things need to change as they won't be able to go above 99?

Bill the TaxMan

seashellz2
Dec 23, 2006, 12:39 AM
I dont see why certain people have their panties in a ruffle-

10.4.9 comes out. Gee, what comes after 9? Build TEN!
Since 10.5 is still 5 month away, and with 10.4.9 out soon, we might get one more update-10.4.10.

I can see people jumping out of windows and off bridges over this one.
The stock market will plummet. Wars will start, Alliances will constantly change...There will be an Apple channel and a Vista Channel on Cable, each trash-talking each other with similar ads.

And God forbid we should see a 10.4.11.

There will be rioting in the streets, as the National Guard is called out to protect Apple stores, and in Redmond, Microsoft-just because they have a ninny name like Vista for an OS..
:eek:

ATG
Dec 23, 2006, 04:48 AM
Has anyone else noticed that when watching anything flash-based in safari... If you deselect that window, the framerate goes down by at least 50%...
I would say that that is intentional so if you aren't using safari (the window is not selected) the framerate drops so that you can carry on doing other work without the flash affecting CPU usage. Flash is pretty CPU intensive.

MacsRgr8
Dec 23, 2006, 05:01 AM
Apple should have used the updates-numeral system like this:

Mac OS X 10.04.09

No more discussions :rolleyes: ;)

Manic Mouse
Dec 23, 2006, 06:18 AM
Exactly! Release just before Vista and the excitement lasts a few days, until Vista comes out. Release just after Vista and there will be hardly any excitement because all the focus will be on the OS 90% of the world uses. Release at least a month (or maybe two) after Vista and OS X could be the answer for the people that ended up being disappointed with Vista.

The problem with this logic is that it simply will not work in the real world. Very few people, no matter how disappointed they are with Vista, are willing to go out a few months later and drop a grand or two on a new computer (in this case a Mac). Most people buy a new computer once every five years, if even.

There will be a flurry of new purchases whenever Vista comes out, and every one of those purchases will be a lost "switcher" for the next three to five years minimum. Unless of course Apple get 10.5 out the door and have a good "new" alternative to Vista, with features like Time Machine that everyone can use and Vista lacks.

Apple need to get Leopard out before, or near, Vista and push it hard as a better alternative to Vista. People are ready to change from XP to a new OS and Apple can capitalise on this or they can miss the boat by a few months and lose a lot of potential switchers because of Vista.

displaced
Dec 23, 2006, 11:51 AM
Apple need to get Leopard out before, or near, Vista and push it hard as a better alternative to Vista. People are ready to change from XP to a new OS and Apple can capitalise on this or they can miss the boat by a few months and lose a lot of potential switchers because of Vista.

I'm not so sure. The bad PR of a flaky initial release for Leopard would be much worse than being released 16 or 20 weeks after Vista.

Sure, there most likely will be some spike of PC purchases after Vista's release (although the PC press are currently rather unsure about how significant that'll be). However, people who are buying a new machine specifically to obtain Vista are probably rather dead-set on owning and using Vista regardless.

From what I've seen of Vista, it's largely a catch-up with what OS X has been doing for over a year now. All of the comparisons between Vista and OS X have been based on Tiger, and Tiger's held its own. What we need from Leopard is a solid, interesting release with features that Microsoft have not put into Vista.

Upon release, Leopard needs to do three things: 1) Make those who were dead-set on using Vista feel a little green. 2) Confirm to those potential switchers who were holding off on adopting Vista to see what Leopard brought that their hunch was right, and 3) Appeal to people who simply weren't paying attention to either Vista or Leopard and show that OS X is a sound alternative.

mkrishnan
Dec 23, 2006, 12:05 PM
People that think that things have to stop at 10.4.9 should check out the scanner program, VueScan. It is up to version 8.3.86.

Do they have any plans to make it not suck anytime in the near future? :D

tpjunkie
Dec 24, 2006, 12:16 AM
At my office (a large multination corporation with HQ in manhattan) we support 150 macs (compared with about 4,000 pcs), and we have several xServes running Tiger server. Last week we discovered a major bug related to the HFS+ filesystem, which rendered a fully redundant RAID completely inoperable, and just connecting it to another machine will cause that machine to crash. The bug occurs if a journalled disk becomes too full, and the journal file becomes corrupt. At this point nothing bad will happen, although you may notice a slow down of drive performance. If you then delete a large enough file or directory (in our case, 8 GB) something wonky happens with the journal file, causing catastrophic failure on any OS X machine the disk is connected to.

We spoke to Apple about the issue, which they were able to replicate. They told us they were working on the issue with the level 1 engineers (the guys who coded the OS in the first place) and would have a fix out in 10.4.9...so for me, it really can't come quickly enough!

Sam0r
Dec 24, 2006, 01:07 PM
I really hope to god this update fixes the flash problems I've been having.

Seriously, adobe flash is just SO slow, I've messed with flash on a 500mhz XP machine, and it was much faster than it is on my 1ghz PB.

I've got many many more problems, but I'm buying my new laptop in january, and because of these problems, I'm tempted to buy a sony.

Another thing, perhaps core image related, that when I have my external monitor plugged in, the whole system just grinds to a halt, its useless trying to run photoshop.

Try that on a pc, and it loves it.

Squozen
Dec 25, 2006, 03:41 AM
...or you could try buying a modern Mac?

iW00t
Dec 25, 2006, 04:30 AM
...or you could try buying a modern Mac?

Why? The PDF standard has not really changed since many years ago :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Sam0r
Dec 25, 2006, 08:57 AM
...or you could try buying a modern Mac?

I'm not buying a whole new laptop just because flash is badly coded. I've ordered myself a MBP now. But I'll probably be spending 90% of the time in windows.

mkrishnan
Dec 25, 2006, 09:00 AM
I'm not buying a whole new laptop just because flash is badly coded. I've ordered myself a MBP now. But I'll probably be spending 90% of the time in windows.

Do you have Flash 9 on your PB, out of curiosity? I have definitely observed that Flash is not well-optimized for Macs, but it seems a lot better than Flash 8....

Compile 'em all
Dec 25, 2006, 09:13 AM
At my office (a large multination corporation with HQ in manhattan) we support 150 macs (compared with about 4,000 pcs), and we have several xServes running Tiger server. Last week we discovered a major bug related to the HFS+ filesystem, which rendered a fully redundant RAID completely inoperable, and just connecting it to another machine will cause that machine to crash. The bug occurs if a journalled disk becomes too full, and the journal file becomes corrupt. At this point nothing bad will happen, although you may notice a slow down of drive performance. If you then delete a large enough file or directory (in our case, 8 GB) something wonky happens with the journal file, causing catastrophic failure on any OS X machine the disk is connected to.

We spoke to Apple about the issue, which they were able to replicate. They told us they were working on the issue with the level 1 engineers (the guys who coded the OS in the first place) and would have a fix out in 10.4.9...so for me, it really can't come quickly enough!

This is very interesting. Where they able to replicate it on both Tiger and Tiger server or just the server?

Sam0r
Dec 25, 2006, 09:23 AM
Do you have Flash 9 on your PB, out of curiosity? I have definitely observed that Flash is not well-optimized for Macs, but it seems a lot better than Flash 8....

Flash 9 :(

mkrishnan
Dec 25, 2006, 09:26 AM
Flash 9 :(

If you have a particularly egregious website for me to check out, I'd be happy to check one out for you. Weird.... But then maybe my impressions are just distorted. And I should also point out that adblock reduces a substantial amount of the Flash burden on my Macs... :D so I'm only ever seeing flash that I want to see. ;)

Sam0r
Dec 25, 2006, 09:39 AM
If you have a particularly egregious website for me to check out, I'd be happy to check one out for you. Weird.... But then maybe my impressions are just distorted. And I should also point out that adblock reduces a substantial amount of the Flash burden on my Macs... :D so I'm only ever seeing flash that I want to see. ;)

http://www.sonyericsson.com/walkman/index.aspx?cc=gb&lc=en
Try that, It just kills safari. Youtube, however, seems perfectly fine... Although if I watch a youtube video using flock (firefox), I get jerky playback, but thats probably just flock.

mkrishnan
Dec 25, 2006, 10:02 AM
http://www.sonyericsson.com/walkman/index.aspx?cc=gb&lc=en
Try that, It just kills safari. Youtube, however, seems perfectly fine... Although if I watch a youtube video using flock (firefox), I get jerky playback, but thats probably just flock.

And people have anger issues about Motorola? That site in itself is enough to make me never, ever want to own a Sony phone. :D

I tried it on two readily accessible computers:

iBook G4 / 800 MHz / 640 MB RAM / 10.4.8 / FF2 and Safari (mine)
HP Celeron 2.7 GHz / 1 GB RAM / XP / SP 2 / IE7 (my parents)

I take no responsibility for the setup of the HP... I had to close about six annoying things that pop up to supposedly help me on boot. :rolleyes:

But, what I observed was that the website was comparable in terms of speed in Safari and Firefox, and I estimate only about 20%-30% faster on the PC / IE7 than it was on my computer, based both on the speed of the main rotating wheel and the responsiveness of the pop-ups and action items.

The Mac had Firefox with about four tabs and Adium running in the background while I tested it on Safari (and all of that minus Safari when I tested it in Firefox). The PC had only IE7 (single tab) plus whatever background crap my parents installed that I did not catch and stop. After I post this, for giggles, I will quit everything on my iBook, open only Safari, and just run this website.

EDIT: When I did that, I feel that the iBook was only marginally slower than my experience on the (unoptimized, again) PC with IE7. It was definitely slightly slower... I estimate maybe 10% slower? But the overall responsiveness felt fairly comparable.

I'd say this isn't bad, considering I'd expect that computer to be faster than mine anyways. I don't have my 2 GHz iMac G5 here to test.... And I have no Intel Mac.

But, it definitely wasn't substantially more bogged down on the PC than my Mac, and it wasn't unusable at all on my Mac... I mean... short of the fact that it was designed from the ground up to be a rotating cloud that kills brain cells. ;)

So hmmm... I wonder if there's something unique to your computer?

tpjunkie
Dec 25, 2006, 10:43 AM
This is very interesting. Where they able to replicate it on both Tiger and Tiger server or just the server?

I'm not sure, but seeing as it's an issue with how the OS communicates with a volume it's attempting to mount, I'd imagine both Tiger and Tiger server could be affected. We also found out that while the fix should make it into 10.4.9, it most likely will not make it into 10.5.0, and will probably come out in 10.5.1 under leopard.

Sam0r
Dec 25, 2006, 11:01 AM
And people have anger issues about Motorola? That site in itself is enough to make me never, ever want to own a Sony phone. :D

I tried it on two readily accessible computers:

iBook G4 / 800 MHz / 640 MB RAM / 10.4.8 / FF2 and Safari (mine)
HP Celeron 2.7 GHz / 1 GB RAM / XP / SP 2 / IE7 (my parents)

I take no responsibility for the setup of the HP... I had to close about six annoying things that pop up to supposedly help me on boot. :rolleyes:

But, what I observed was that the website was comparable in terms of speed in Safari and Firefox, and I estimate only about 20%-30% faster on the PC / IE7 than it was on my computer, based both on the speed of the main rotating wheel and the responsiveness of the pop-ups and action items.

The Mac had Firefox with about four tabs and Adium running in the background while I tested it on Safari (and all of that minus Safari when I tested it in Firefox). The PC had only IE7 (single tab) plus whatever background crap my parents installed that I did not catch and stop. After I post this, for giggles, I will quit everything on my iBook, open only Safari, and just run this website.

EDIT: When I did that, I feel that the iBook was only marginally slower than my experience on the (unoptimized, again) PC with IE7. It was definitely slightly slower... I estimate maybe 10% slower? But the overall responsiveness felt fairly comparable.

I'd say this isn't bad, considering I'd expect that computer to be faster than mine anyways. I don't have my 2 GHz iMac G5 here to test.... And I have no Intel Mac.

But, it definitely wasn't substantially more bogged down on the PC than my Mac, and it wasn't unusable at all on my Mac... I mean... short of the fact that it was designed from the ground up to be a rotating cloud that kills brain cells. ;)

So hmmm... I wonder if there's something unique to your computer?

I'm not sure. I used to have a DP 1ghz G4, and funnily enough, it was worse on that... But with that I was running at 1680x1050 which bogged it down immencely.

I'll start a new thread later about this, don't really want to fill this thread up with crap.

Although, when this update is out, I'll report back and let you know if it helped flash at all.

Also, another thing I've noticed, mac's seem to suffer a lot more with higher resolutions than pc's do, at work I run a celeron 2.8 with two dell 2005FPW's, and it copes perfectly fine using Intel's GMA900 with an ADD2 card. Its pretty upsetting to see a dual 1ghz G4 struggle with one 2005fpw.

tuartboy
Dec 25, 2006, 12:27 PM
http://www.sonyericsson.com/walkman/index.aspx?cc=gb&lc=en
Try that, It just kills safari. Youtube, however, seems perfectly fine... Although if I watch a youtube video using flock (firefox), I get jerky playback, but thats probably just flock.

Yes, flash is bad on G4s. That site sends my CPU to 100%. 1.5 Ghz 12" PB here.

Edit: I hook up my 12" PB to a 24" monitor at 1920 x1200 and I see no performance slowdowns at all. You likely have a problem with your graphics drivers.

mkrishnan
Dec 25, 2006, 12:33 PM
Yes, flash is bad on G4s. That site sends my CPU to 100%. 1.5 Ghz 12" PB here.

But that's the thing I don't understand... I not only am using a G4, but a slower one with less memory (probably) than either of you.

Why is it that it doesn't tank my iBook?

tuartboy
Dec 25, 2006, 01:07 PM
But that's the thing I don't understand... I not only am using a G4, but a slower one with less memory (probably) than either of you.

Why is it that it doesn't tank my iBook?

Well, it doesn't "tank" my system, it just runs the CPU up to 100% and makes it really slow. It still works fine, though. Are you completely sure that it doesn't do the same thing to you? Open up activity monitor and check your CPU stats.

Compile 'em all
Dec 25, 2006, 03:10 PM
We also found out that while the fix should make it into 10.4.9, it most likely will not make it into 10.5.0, and will probably come out in 10.5.1 under leopard.

That is pretty bizarre. Do you have any idea why is that?. I can't find any logical explanation for why they can't put out the fix into the .0 release of Leopard :confused:.

mkrishnan
Dec 25, 2006, 03:28 PM
Well, it doesn't "tank" my system, it just runs the CPU up to 100% and makes it really slow. It still works fine, though. Are you completely sure that it doesn't do the same thing to you? Open up activity monitor and check your CPU stats.

With just Safari open and just this page, once the flash was fully loaded and running, the % CPU ranged from 45 to 65 percent with 10-40% idle.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/mkrishnan/webcache/damnablesony.jpg

Sorry to continue this discussion here... I think it's just the confound of whether things are repeatable, systematic problems that need to be addressed by bug fixes, or problems that are unique in some way to how one machine is set up. If it is true that there's something hinky about the way Flash and your two powerbooks get along, I have no idea what it is. But I'm just suggesting it might not be an explicit weakness of either Flash or 10.4.8....

Compile 'em all
Dec 25, 2006, 03:37 PM
Well, it doesn't "tank" my system, it just runs the CPU up to 100% and makes it really slow. It still works fine, though. Are you completely sure that it doesn't do the same thing to you? Open up activity monitor and check your CPU stats.

I have the same problem. I am on a 1.5 GHZ PB and it utilizes 100% of the CPU time :mad:.

OdduWon
Dec 25, 2006, 07:09 PM
i was just on the apple site looking at a mac pro, and when i clicked on the apple page, for a split second i saw this blue ichat icon above the customer service number that said chat now!!!:eek: i only flashed for a second, and when i hit the back button, it was gone. :confused:
it was a little after midnight on the 24th.

here is a mock-up of what i saw, again i only saw it for a second so i am not too sure about the lateral placement. i know there was a iTunes 7 blue colored, vector looking ichat symbol and it said chat now. I saw the icon first, and ended my glance at with my eyes moving down towards the service number, so i didn't get all the visual hierarchy digested, but it looked like an ichat tech support service, maybe the will add this to the $50k apple care for servers gets you? fro

SiliconAddict
Dec 25, 2006, 11:26 PM
If you're patient it does timeout after a while. I do agree the network stuff is a bit rubbish, but it is under Windows too


Whatever. I've NEVER had Windows Explorer hang on me along with the rest of the shell in XP or 2K when dealing with networking....9x is another matter. Sorry but networking in Windows is a heck of a lot better but you can thank MS's closed source nature for that. Kinda hard to make things compatible when you practically have to reverse engineer things in Windows.*shrugs* That being said it still shouldn't freeze the blasted shell of OS X.

SiliconAddict
Dec 25, 2006, 11:49 PM
Apple need to get Leopard out before, or near, Vista and push it hard as a better alternative to Vista. People are ready to change from XP to a new OS and Apple can capitalise on this or they can miss the boat by a few months and lose a lot of potential switchers because of Vista.

This is just a stupid sentiment. Really. So you would rather that Apple release a buggy OS that tech sites would rip apart, trash, and generally give bad reviews instead of waiting a few months and released a polished OS. Thank god you aren't in charge of OS development at Apple. Tiger was bad enough when it was released. Anyone who says otherwise didn't run it. I lost count of my friend who downgraded to Panther a month after they upgraded to Tiger when it was launched. Apple can not afford another round of this in the public eye.

Realistically Apple doesn't give a crap about Vista's launch. Apple's bread and butter is in hardware sales. All estimates right now suggest that Apple is going to sell a TON of Macs in '07. Apple isn't competing with MS because you can't just buy OS X outright for you PC like you can with Vista. They are competing with hardware manufacturers for anyone buying a new computer. The simple fact is that users are getting coupons NOW for free upgrades to Vista when you buy X or Y PC. So the idea that January is the drop dead starting date for Vista is wrong. What is going to be released in January will be the ability to buy stand alone licenses. Anyone interested in a stand alone license isn't going to spend a grand on a Mac to get OS X. So lets drop this idea that Apple is trying to nab sales from MS at launch. Where things get interesting is back to school sales and '07's holiday shopping season. Both of which are well beyond the January Vista launch. These are the time frames when people typically buy new computers. Just like the one we just went through without Vista being available and Tiger showing up XP still.
No Leopard will be demoed at MWSF and hopefully a few suprise features will show up Vista and start the rumor mill which will put some water on MS's Vista PR campaign. But it isn't going to be released.

treblah
Dec 26, 2006, 01:03 AM
So you would rather that Apple release a buggy OS that tech sites would rip apart, trash, and generally give bad reviews instead of waiting a few months and released a polished OS.

Very true.

Oh wait (http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/macosx_tiger.asp), nevermind (http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars).

Tiger is the best version of Mac OS X yet. It offers substantial improvements over Panther in all important areas. The performance improvements are immediately noticeable.

Apple Mac OS X 10.4 "Tiger" is the strongest OS X release yet and a worthy competitor to Windows XP.…That's fine, I guess: Tiger performs well, looks great, and offers many modern OS features.

Those were the first Google returns for Tiger reviews but that pretty much covers everyone from edge-case Mac users to Microsoft shills. Here's to hoping Leopard is twice as 'bad' as Tiger. BTW, did you run 10.4.0? I thought you just got your first Mac. :confused:

madmax_2069
Dec 26, 2006, 03:39 AM
Not in that way, but there have been some things like that:
Mac OS 9.0.4 v2
System 7.0.1P
System 7.1.2P
System 7.5.3 Revision 2
System 7.5.3 Revision 2.1
System 7.5.3 Revision 2.2

And there were a few others, but I can't remember. I want to say that I read something about a Mac OS X release with a v2 after it, but I can't remember which one.


in OS X they redid the 10.2.8 update. cant remember why but i know that was one version of OS X that was rereleased

This better fix the problem with Safari regarding flash and drop down menus.

For example, on BestBuy.com (http://www.bestbuy.com/), when you try and select an item from a drop down menu (such as Software under Computers), the menu flickers or disappears.

...Drives me crazy.



i have the same problem here to bro, it to drives me nuts that flash dont and has never worked right on a mac at all that i have seen in any version of Mac OS/OS X.

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/7323/bestbuycg3.th.jpg (http://img401.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bestbuycg3.jpg)

its like the dropdown get hidden by the picture. it just dont happen on bestbuy.com either many other sites do this as well. best buy is a good example for what the other sites do also

But that's the thing I don't understand... I not only am using a G4, but a slower one with less memory (probably) than either of you.

Why is it that it doesn't tank my iBook?

safari dont take 100% of my cpu but it comes close (also im on a Beige G3 running at 466mhz. it does run/move ok but my compaq celoron 500mhz with 64mb ram with a 3dfx voodoo 3 2000 pci running windows xp pro sp 2 ran it 50% smoother and faster than what my Mac does

http://img157.imageshack.us/img157/332/picture2va3.th.jpg (http://img157.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture2va3.jpg)

one problem i have noticed myself when i have iTunes 7.x running and surfing with safari when i try to move the window around the mouse cursor flickers back and forth to the hand and to the normal pointer in a fast pulsating speed. i have tryed diffrent way's but it only happens when safari and iTunes are running together.

also i can be surfing i go to a site and if i click on a link wile the site is still loading it acts like i am not connected to the internet i am on dialup but it also happened to me wile i was on DSL. when it happens its like i load safari with no internet connection and it display's a error

i hope these problem are fixed in the next tiger update cause it will make for a better OS X user experience not having these problems.

miniConvert
Dec 26, 2006, 04:50 AM
i have the same problem bro, it to drives me nuts that flash dont and has never worked right on a mac at all that i have seen in any version of Mac OS/OS X.

its like the dropdown get hidden by the picture
We had the same issue when designing our new site - it has flash directly underneath the dropdowns and the dropdowns get hidden behind the flash. The problem was easily fixed by properly setting up the tag in the page that controls the flash element so transparency worked. This had to be done using the HTML code exported from Flash, using the code Dreamweaver creates didn't work. Sounds like BestBuy just need to test their website a little better.

madmax_2069
Dec 26, 2006, 06:04 AM
We had the same issue when designing our new site - it has flash directly underneath the dropdowns and the dropdowns get hidden behind the flash. The problem was easily fixed by properly setting up the tag in the page that controls the flash element so transparency worked. This had to be done using the HTML code exported from Flash, using the code Dreamweaver creates didn't work. Sounds like BestBuy just need to test their website a little better.

yea i see this with allot of other sites and not just bestbuy.

but i wonder why it display's correctly on otherbrowsers but not safari cause it seems like its just a problem with safari i haven't seen in firefox yet to see if its also there

i think you got the unedited version of my post before i posted pic's and added reply's to other peoples and my point out of errors is safari/ or site

EDIT: well i just tested bestbuy.com with firefox in Mac OS X and the problem isnt there also tried a few others as well and the problem isnt there with them. i have seen that safari bogs down with some flash and java and others dont

mkrishnan
Dec 26, 2006, 08:08 AM
safari dont take 100% of my cpu but it comes close (also im on a Beige G3 running at 466mhz. it does run/move ok but my compaq celoron 500mhz with 64mb ram with a 3dfx voodoo 3 2000 pci running windows xp pro sp 2 ran it 50% smoother and faster than what my Mac does.

Okay, now pardoning the previous poster's saying he did not want to upgrade just to be able to see a flash embed, at this point, this is ridiculous. Does a Beige G3 even officially support Tiger? Doesn't XP require 128 MB of RAM?

I could complain that my stone tablet is also sluggish opening pages with lots of Flash... :rolleyes: Not to mention how easily it scratches when I'm just using the stylus...erm...chisel. :o

kcmac
Dec 26, 2006, 09:28 AM
iTunes 7 isn't supported on anything below 500mhz.

tuartboy
Dec 26, 2006, 10:58 AM
Okay, now pardoning the previous poster's saying he did not want to upgrade just to be able to see a flash embed, at this point, this is ridiculous. Does a Beige G3 even officially support Tiger? Doesn't XP require 128 MB of RAM?

I could complain that my stone tablet is also sluggish opening pages with lots of Flash... :rolleyes: Not to mention how easily it scratches when I'm just using the stylus...erm...chisel. :o

I see your point, but in my case, my system is only 1.5 years old and has 3x that clock speed and 1.25Gb of Ram. I still have this problem and it just screams unoptimized code.

Sam0r
Dec 26, 2006, 11:23 AM
I see your point, but in my case, my system is only 1.5 years old and has 3x that clock speed and 1.25Gb of Ram. I still have this problem and it just screams unoptimized code.

Yeah, as far as I am conserned, this is the BIGGEST flaw of OS X, and its not even Apple's fault.

Can't quicktime also render flash? That might be worth looking into if it can...

mkrishnan
Dec 26, 2006, 11:31 AM
I see your point, but in my case, my system is only 1.5 years old and has 3x that clock speed and 1.25Gb of Ram. I still have this problem and it just screams unoptimized code.

But that was my point with respect to your system. How come mine is half as fast, has half as much RAM, and seems to deal with that site better?

Sam0r
Dec 26, 2006, 12:12 PM
But that was my point with respect to your system. How come mine is half as fast, has half as much RAM, and seems to deal with that site better?

Display resoltution. This is my other beef with mac's, not that its even noticable with the newer intel machines, but the higher the resolution you're running at, the slower the WHOLE machine seems to be.

Neither Windows or Linux have this problem. Seeing as you were running on an iBook, the resolution would have been 1024x768, which is fairly low considering what I bet most of us are running here.

Try running a flash movie at 1280x1024 and you'll see. I tried it just on my PB, setting the resolution to 1024x768 allows flash movies to play MUCH better, but at the PB's native resolution, 1280x854 (or something..) its deadly slow.

Now, isn't tiger supposed to have Quartz 2D Extreme, or something of similar description. I believe this will GREATLY aid us in this resolution problem, if we could activate it.

I'll have a search.

tuartboy
Dec 26, 2006, 01:21 PM
Display resoltution.

My 12" PB has a native resolution of 1024x768 and all tests have been run at that resolution. I also hook it up to a Dell 2405 (24" @ 1920x1200) at my desk and I see no performance difference in 2D applications whatsoever. Heck, Age III evens runs well at 1920x1200 on this machine, but 2D flash craps out...

Sam0r
Dec 26, 2006, 01:38 PM
My 12" PB has a native resolution of 1024x768 and all tests have been run at that resolution. I also hook it up to a Dell 2405 (24" @ 1920x1200) at my desk and I see no performance difference in 2D applications whatsoever. Heck, Age III evens runs well at 1920x1200 on this machine, but 2D flash craps out...

Well, It cerintaly makes a difference on all the mac systems I've used.

SiliconAddict
Dec 26, 2006, 02:09 PM
Very true.

Oh wait (http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/macosx_tiger.asp), nevermind (http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars).





Those were the first Google returns for Tiger reviews but that pretty much covers everyone from edge-case Mac users to Microsoft shills. Here's to hoping Leopard is twice as 'bad' as Tiger. BTW, did you run 10.4.0? I thought you just got your first Mac. :confused:


I don't care about John's review. The simple fact of the matter is that Tiger was a buggy mess when it came out. Talk to anyone who first adopted it on launch. I know at last count 6 people that downgraded and then upgraded again around 10.4.5 Like it or not apple has a history of releasing buggy updates, be they full blow OS updates or patches.

tuartboy
Dec 26, 2006, 02:11 PM
Well, It cerintaly makes a difference on all the mac systems I've used.

For CPU-bound tasks (Flash has very limited support for GPU acceleration) resolution means practically nothing. 1920x1200 might fill up the memory buffers pretty full with data, but it's still 2.3Megapixels no matter what you are doing since it's only 2D. Video/audio encoding, RAW processing, etc... will see no difference in performance at any supported resolution. This is different from GPU-accellerated tasks such as games and Motion 2 and such. Those apps can be made to scale up to use as much power as available. That's what the Z-axis and associated algorithmic geometry and effects add...

Don't exactly quote me on this as it's been a while since I took a computer graphics class (and I slept through a lot of it then...).

What might be happening to some systems is that the graphics card does not have sufficient memory support a lot of UI activity at higher resolutions. I know that this isn't too much of a problem even for me and I run desktop manager with 4 desktops full of stuff at the same time. In other words, my system is tracking a lot of open windows at the same time and I still don't see a problem. But perhaps...

And while we're on the topic of crappy web tech: Safari's implementation of JS, while solid and compatible, is slow as crap.

Sam0r
Dec 26, 2006, 02:16 PM
For CPU-bound tasks (Flash has very limited support for GPU acceleration) resolution means practically nothing. 1920x1200 might fill up the memory buffers pretty full with data, but it's still 2.3Megapixels no matter what you are doing since it's only 2D. Video/audio encoding, RAW processing, etc... will see no difference in performance at any supported resolution. This is different from GPU-accellerated tasks such as games and Motion 2 and such. Those apps can be made to scale up to use as much power as available. That's what the Z-axis and associated algorithmic geometry and effects add...

Don't exactly quote me on this as it's been a while since I took a computer graphics class (and I slept through a lot of it then...).

What might be happening to some systems is that the graphics card does not have sufficient memory support a lot of UI activity at higher resolutions. I know that this isn't too much of a problem even for me and I run desktop manager with 4 desktops full of stuff at the same time. In other words, my system is tracking a lot of open windows at the same time and I still don't see a problem. But perhaps...

And while we're on the topic of crappy web tech: Safari's implementation of JS, while solid and compatible, is slow as crap.

Perhaps not for cpu-bound tasks, but I'm telling you from first hand experience, that higher resolutions on an older mac cause a massive slowdown, not just for flash, but for everything that gets displayed on the screen.

You could say the same for any operating system, and it is true, but it seems to be a hell of a lot more apparent on an os x based system.

EricNau
Dec 26, 2006, 02:20 PM
We had the same issue when designing our new site - it has flash directly underneath the dropdowns and the dropdowns get hidden behind the flash. The problem was easily fixed by properly setting up the tag in the page that controls the flash element so transparency worked. This had to be done using the HTML code exported from Flash, using the code Dreamweaver creates didn't work. Sounds like BestBuy just need to test their website a little better.
While BestBuy could probably do something to fix their site, they shouldn't have to. This is definitely a problem with Safari, not the website code.

Here are some other sites with similar behavior...
http://www.sonystyle.com
http://www.circuitcity.com/

Sam0r
Dec 26, 2006, 02:25 PM
While BestBuy could probably do something to fix their site, they shouldn't have to. This is definitely a problem with Safari, not the website code.

Here are some other sites with similar behavior...
http://www.sonystyle.com
http://www.circuitcity.com/

Add http://www.adobe.com to that list...

Lynxpro
Dec 26, 2006, 02:45 PM
so what group, exactly, DO you Gallifreyans get along with? Or tolerate? Must be lonely out there, compadre.


Gallifreyans? Pfff....those are the commoners. Some of us are full-on Time Lords, thank you very much. Respect.

Lynxpro
Dec 26, 2006, 02:48 PM
Then, someone got the bright idea to invite Daleks over for tea. They kept shouting "¡Usted será exterminado!" Oh well, now Gallifrey makes the Alderaan star system look like a picnic!:)


Don't forget Krypton in that analysis too.

Besides, all the important stuff was moved to New Gallifrey eons ago. Even the Commode of Rassilon is in the Hall of Antiquities there. Of course, the smallest item on display in the collection is Keanu Reeves's brain. Neo indeed!

EricNau
Dec 26, 2006, 08:29 PM
Add http://www.adobe.com to that list...
...and, I just discovered http://www.garmin.com as well.

mkrishnan
Dec 26, 2006, 08:37 PM
...and, I just discovered http://www.garmin.com as well.

That site's very fast on my iBook G4 / 800. In fact only a slight difference between my iBook and my iMac G5. Are you really having problems with it?

treblah
Dec 27, 2006, 12:24 AM
I don't care about John's review. The simple fact of the matter is that Tiger was a buggy mess when it came out. Talk to anyone who first adopted it on launch. I know at last count 6 people that downgraded and then upgraded again around 10.4.5 Like it or not apple has a history of releasing buggy updates, be they full blow OS updates or patches.

So Apple shouldn't have released Tiger until February '06?

Since you know all about Apple's buggy releases so well just wait 10 months after Leopard is released and then upgrade. You won't have to deal with the millions of bugs and it will save you a lot time and effort.

Yeah, Apple's testing system is flawed. I can't imagine more than like 20K developers testing Leopard, so of course there are going to be bugs Apple doesn't catch. But for your each of your six friends how many more tens of thousands were using Tiger without any problems?

As someone who has personally ran 10.1, 2, 3 and 4.0, the benefits of each were greater than the annoyances.

Until Apple starts wider testing: treat 10.x.0 as a paid beta, run the new system on a different partition, file bug reports and enjoy living on the bleeding edge. :p

madmax_2069
Dec 27, 2006, 03:44 AM
Okay, now pardoning the previous poster's saying he did not want to upgrade just to be able to see a flash embed, at this point, this is ridiculous. Does a Beige G3 even officially support Tiger? Doesn't XP require 128 MB of RAM?

I could complain that my stone tablet is also sluggish opening pages with lots of Flash... :rolleyes: Not to mention how easily it scratches when I'm just using the stylus...erm...chisel. :o

Is the Beige G3 supported in tiger no it isn't, But it will run it with xpostfacto and if done right like i have you will have no problems out of tiger running on it ( i have had the same tiger install on this system since 10.4.3 and safari has only crashed once and i have had only 1 KP and that is all the crashing problems that i have seen ). tiger performs better on my system then what the supported 10.2-10.2.8 does. just because apple made tiger not support the Beige G3 don't mean it cant or cant run great. even tho having a ATI Radeon 7000 PCI video card installed which makes tiger that much more better to use and allows me to enable PCI extreme when i want to.

As for Windows XP's 128mb ram requirement is just that a requirement only not what it has to have for it to run. i have seen people install and run XP on a real old system with only 16mb ram yea it took forever to boot and was hardly useable but it was still done.

i was just stating that my Compaq even tho it only has 64mb ram and a celoron 500mhz cpu with a unsupported 3dfx voodoo 3 2000 PCI it still does flash and java allot faster and smoother than what it does on this Mac with tiger. flash and java on this Mac should run about the same if not better that it does on the Compaq.

my Friend has a Digital audio G4 466 with the same amount of ram that i have i almost beat him on a startup test (like under a half a second slower than his). yea his GUI was smoother running than mine but flash and java still ran allot slower than what the Compaq does (safari on his system scrolls real smooth until it hits java and or flash then it slows down to a studder pace) . so unsupported or not flash and java is buggy and slow on a Mac in every OS apple has made that could have ran java and flash allot better than what it does now. safari just has its bugs that other browsers don't have and other browsers have there bugs that safari don't have. its just other browsers run java and flash better on them then it does in safari. and in windows every browser runs java and flash better than any browser in OS X.

don't get me wrong or think that im trolling cause im not i would just love for apple to try to get this stuff working way better than it is now so it makes for a better Mac/OS X user experience not to just me but for other people as well. the majority of people that own computers Mac/PC surf the web more than anything else that a computer is used for. i guess you can say its a trade off between having bug's or slow down's in safari due to java or flash in OS X or having a overfill of viruses on a windows pc

sorry for putting people asleep with my long winded post

SpaceMagic
Dec 27, 2006, 04:17 AM
I don't know why people really worry. Mac OS X has got better every new edition. As someone who has run Public Beta all the way to 10.4.8, and every little update on the way, I can say that Apple have endeavoured to include as many machines as possible to support OS X in the most user friendly way.

Leopard is going to come out and it'll officially support every machine Tiger does, no doubt. Those who are brave will run xpostfacto and may even get to run Leopard. The point is, stop worrying. If you've bought a mac in the last 5 years, it's likely your Mac will run Leopard. If you've bought a PC in the last 6 months, you'll be blummin' lucky if it'll run Vista!

madmax_2069
Dec 27, 2006, 05:33 AM
I don't know why people really worry. Mac OS X has got better every new edition. As someone who has run Public Beta all the way to 10.4.8, and every little update on the way, I can say that Apple have endeavoured to include as many machines as possible to support OS X in the most user friendly way.

Leopard is going to come out and it'll officially support every machine Tiger does, no doubt. Those who are brave will run xpostfacto and may even get to run Leopard. The point is, stop worrying. If you've bought a mac in the last 5 years, it's likely your Mac will run Leopard. If you've bought a PC in the last 6 months, you'll be blummin' lucky if it'll run Vista!

yea i can tell that from jaguar (which supports my Beige G3) that tiger (that don't support my system) runs way more better/faster than what jag does. tiger is also way less buggy compared to jag.apple has done a wonderful job with tiger. but tiger could be better in some respects. but all in all tiger is a wonderful OS and Leopard will be even better than tiger but like people said it to will have its fair share of bugs when first launched. the only thing that normal people can do is submit bug's to try and help apple make OS X better.

i have seen a old iMac G3 running one of the beta's of 10.5 so i know it is possible some time down the road to install 10.5 on the Beige G3. ryan of xpostfacto hasn't posted on the OWC tech forums for xpostfacto in over a year so i don't know if a version of xpost will ever make it out.

but any way keep up the good work apple on making every release of OS X better

mkrishnan
Dec 27, 2006, 08:38 AM
sorry for putting people asleep with my long winded post

No problem...in any event, I have no problem with flash being farther optimized. Although I do still hate sites like the Sony site that we were discussing that are all cutesy stupid fluff, and I am going to hate them no matter how fast the stupid wheel spins around. Sites like the Garmin site that was linked use Flash well enough and I have no problem with them. :)

wrldwzrd89
Dec 27, 2006, 10:23 AM
Count me in among those that hope this update fixes the networking bugs still left in Tiger... I'm looking forward to this update.

dernhelm
Dec 27, 2006, 12:09 PM
I'm beginning to think that 10.5 is going to be released with Vista. Apple may be leveraging its press.

I like it.

You mean the "consumer" version of Vista. There is already a version of Vista shipping but only being sold to large (stupid) corporations. It is also available as a download to those with MSDN subscriptions. I have a released version of Vista Ultimate installed on my machine right now (in a VM).

But I don't think Apple releases Tiger in January. I think you are looking at an early March release date. The worst thing apple could do is rush things just to beat Microsoft to market. I've worked with Vista, and there is simply nothing there that Apple needs to rush things for. If Apple is smart, they let Vista arrive with a resounding thud, let the dust clear the air, then soar overhead with Tiger a little more than a month later.

Look forward to Apple spilling the beans on the "rest" of the OS/X features they kept under wraps at MacWorld, but don't expect them to ship.

EricNau
Dec 27, 2006, 01:05 PM
That site's very fast on my iBook G4 / 800. In fact only a slight difference between my iBook and my iMac G5. Are you really having problems with it?

Just the same old "menus-going-behind-the-flash" problem.

madmax_2069
Dec 28, 2006, 01:24 AM
Just the same old "menus-going-behind-the-flash" problem.

yea that problem gets real annoying. some times it wont allow the links to be seen at all.

FarmerBob
Dec 28, 2006, 04:40 PM
...eh... about to download...

...this where they break tiger so that we truly appreciate leopard.

They broke Tiger and I have been saying this for a long time (10.4.4 at least) in the Apple Discussion Groups and the posts have not been pulled.

So . . . . :rolleyes:

mkrishnan
Dec 28, 2006, 04:51 PM
Just the same old "menus-going-behind-the-flash" problem.

I know the predilection is to blame 10.4.8 and Flash, but....

I tried this on my iMac G5 and my iBook G4, both 10.4.8, and I tried FF2 and the latest Safari on both of them. Flash 9, I believe, also on both of them (BTW, how do you tell what version of Flash you have?).

Anyway, across those four configs (iBook/FF, iBook/Saf, iMac/FF, iMac/Saf), none of them displayed this behavior....

madmax_2069
Dec 29, 2006, 02:39 AM
I know the predilection is to blame 10.4.8 and Flash, but....

I tried this on my iMac G5 and my iBook G4, both 10.4.8, and I tried FF2 and the latest Safari on both of them. Flash 9, I believe, also on both of them (BTW, how do you tell what version of Flash you have?).

Anyway, across those four configs (iBook/FF, iBook/Saf, iMac/FF, iMac/Saf), none of them displayed this behavior....

Make shure you have safari selected and click help then installed plug-ins. and scroll down till you see something about java and flash. in the installed plug-ins it shows java is 1.3.1 and shows 2 flash i have 9.0 R19 and 9.0 R20.

it is the way safari handles flash/java is what's wrong cause i tried firefox and that problem wasn't there. and not to mention the way they are done for the Macintosh platform is another thing. but both firefox or safari in OS X dont do well with java or flash that i have seen not when compared to a real low end windows machine (500mhz celoron) cause java and flash works real smoothly no matter the browser. so its a problem with safari, java, flash, and OS X.

sjk
Dec 29, 2006, 03:10 AM
Make shure you have safari selected and click help then installed plug-ins. and scroll down till you see something about java and flash. in the installed plug-ins it shows java is 1.3.1 and shows 2 flash i have 9.0 R19 and 9.0 R20.
A couple other ways to find Adobe Flash Player version information:

• Open the Adobe Flash Player (http://www.macromedia.com/software/flash/about/) page by control-clicking (or right-clicking) on a flash object and clicking "About Adobe Flash Player #…".

• Open the /Library/Internet Plug-Ins folder, select Flash Player.plugin, run Get Info (command-I), and locate the Version under the General section.

mkrishnan
Dec 29, 2006, 07:48 AM
Thanks -- mine has 9,0,16,0, according to the site... which doesn't appear to be the very latest (9,0,28,0). Of course, it works for me... :p

daneoni
Dec 29, 2006, 12:33 PM
I doubt G3 computers will support Leopard. Highly unlikely.

madmax_2069
Dec 30, 2006, 05:47 AM
I doubt G3 computers will support Leopard. Highly unlikely.

official support no but unofficial yes cause i seen a iMac G3 running leopard (well one of the builds cant remember what one)

InfraredAD
Jan 3, 2007, 05:59 PM
$5 says we see the public release of this update at the MWSF 07 Keynote...

Sam0r
Jan 3, 2007, 06:00 PM
$5 says we see the public release of this update at the MWSF 07 Keynote...

Yeah, to support the new products :)