Apple Seeds Build 12D61 of OS X Beta 10.8.3 to Developers

[JackieTreehorn]

Originally Posted by freedevil

Slow shutdown solution

8:37 up 42 days, 21:08, 2 users, load averages: 1.35 1.37 1.30

I decided that some 3,5 months ago

[r.harris1]

Originally Posted by The Bulge

No one gives a carot how you or anyone else rationalizes this. The simple truth is that on it's on the fact that it takes 30+ seconds to shut down the most advanced desktop OS as they makrket (even on a god damn clean install on a ****ing i7 maxed out iMac) it simply INEXCUSABLE AND UNACCEPTABLE.

All rationalizations at this point are useless.

My windows 7 desktop takes almost 3 minutes to shut down. My Mac Book Pro late 2008 10.8.2 takes about 20 seconds, 30 seconds at most. My linux desktop just short of 1 minute. How fast should an OS shut down? And why? And if it is inexcusable and unacceptable, what are you going to do about it? Write in all-caps? Switch OSs? Find something to do for 30 seconds? Lots of ways to approach the issue.

[freedevil]

Originally Posted by The Bulge

No one gives a carot how you or anyone else rationalizes this. The simple truth is that on it's on the fact that it takes 30+ seconds to shut down the most advanced desktop OS as they makrket (even on a god damn clean install on a ****ing i7 maxed out iMac) it simply INEXCUSABLE AND UNACCEPTABLE.

All rationalizations at this point are useless.

Well, your carrot does not bother me but you need anger management.

[The Bulge]

Originally Posted by freedevil

Well, your carrot does not bother me but you need anger management.

You need to stop making excuses where there are none.

----------

Originally Posted by r.harris1

My windows 7 desktop takes almost 3 minutes to shut down. My Mac Book Pro late 2008 10.8.2 takes about 20 seconds, 30 seconds at most. My linux desktop just short of 1 minute. How fast should an OS shut down? And why? And if it is inexcusable and unacceptable, what are you going to do about it? Write in all-caps? Switch OSs? Find something to do for 30 seconds? Lots of ways to approach the issue.

I'm not interested in how long it can take to shut down system due to usage and other factors, but when it's some kind of bug which artificially extends shut down time to almost minutes in some cases and is being actively ignored while at the same time a NINTH beta is issued …


As i said i'm not interested in how long it takes to shut down Windows or linux (my Windows 7 in Vmware shuts down faster than my Mac).

[BRLawyer]

Originally Posted by The Bulge

You need to stop making excuses where there are none.

----------



I'm not interested in how long it can take to shut down system due to usage and other factors, but when it's some kind of bug which artificially extends shut down time to almost minutes in some cases and is being actively ignored while at the same time a NINTH beta is issued …


As i said i'm not interested in how long it takes to shut down Windows or linux (my Windows 7 in Vmware shuts down faster than my Mac).

Have you provided this feedback to Apple?

[The Bulge]

Originally Posted by BRLawyer

Have you provided this feedback to Apple?

Several times. Add on top the bloody hilarious file:/// bug. Try typing file:/// just with capital F in any of OS X text entry fields. See what happens. This is low priority too i guess.

[r.harris1]

Originally Posted by The Bulge

You need to stop making excuses where there are none.

----------



I'm not interested in how long it can take to shut down system due to usage and other factors, but when it's some kind of bug which artificially extends shut down time to almost minutes in some cases and is being actively ignored while at the same time a NINTH beta is issued …


As i said i'm not interested in how long it takes to shut down Windows or linux (my Windows 7 in Vmware shuts down faster than my Mac).

You'll call this "making an excuse for Apple" but really, it comes from a lifetime of software development. If it is a Mac OS X bug, it's known and being tracked in a bug database. Each release, bugs get prioritized into "show-stopper", "critical", "average", "low" priorities (or something similar) for the teams to work on. The prioritization is done by the dev/management teams, and where it fits on the list often has to do with whether there is a workaround, albeit annoying (i.e. wait longer for the system to shut down in your case) and if there are resources to work on a particular bit of functionality. The argument "Apple has all this money, my bug should be fixed RIGHT NOW" doesn't work in reality. In every company, all resources (people, budget, etc) are finite so they have to prioritize. They don't get their priorities from people shouting on forums, though I'm sure they find the shouting highly amusing. If they did get their priorities in this way, nothing'd ever get done.

Everybody wants their bug list worked on as the top priority. I've got a huge list of issues I want the Mac, Windows and Ubuntu folks to work on but the bastards just aren't listening to me

[MACRM32]

Originally Posted by The Bulge

Several times. Add on top the bloody hilarious file:/// bug. Try typing file:/// just with capital F in any of OS X text entry fields. See what happens. This is low priority too i guess.

I tried this on Spotlight. Did my taskbar icons just crash and reload? o.O

[The Bulge]

Originally Posted by MACRM32

I tried this on Spotlight. Did my taskbar icons just crash and reload? o.O

Send someone imessage from an iOS device to a Mac see what happnes.

[r.harris1]

Originally Posted by The Bulge

Send someone imessage from an iOS device to a Mac see what happnes.

It crashes the Messages app.

[The Bulge]

Originally Posted by r.harris1

It crashes the Messages app.

and any attemp to open the app will result in crash. Unless that person knows where messages keeps the histroy database.

[r.harris1]

Originally Posted by The Bulge

and any attemp to open the app will result in crash. Unless that person knows where messages keeps the histroy database.

Yeah - this one is serious *****. I wasn't able to type the "F-phrase" in Safari in this forum response without the browser going belly-up. Because I had another conversation going in Messages, I was just able to delete the offending one by hovering (not selecting) and hitting the "x" but yes, if that's the only one going, users would need to know where the database is kept and how to deal with it.

I'll submit with Apple (along with, I am sure, numerous others).

[RedGeminiPA]

Can anyone confirm a few of things?

1) HDMI output issues for monitors - I read earlier beta builds corrected this. Is it still holding up?

2) Safari and WebProcess taking up a lot of memory. Slowly creeps up to around 1GB combined.

3) Safari auto refreshing pages when you go back a page. Still doing this? It drives me insane when I'm browsing eBay and Craigslist. It completely throws off where you left off in a long list of items on a page.

I just bought a 2012 Mac mini with the stock 4GB of memory. I have Safari, Mail and Messages running. After a couple of minutes, I barely have 500MB of memory available. I'll be upgrading to 16GB within a week or so, but this is horrible for anyone that can't upgrade above 4GB.

[Aluminum213]

What's new with 10.8.3?

[ghosthaunt11]

Does anyone know when OS X 10.8.3 is expected to be released to the public?

[PBP]

Originally Posted by ghosthaunt11

Does anyone know when OS X 10.8.3 is expected to be released to the public?

No one knows. But i think this week.

[sshhoott]

Originally Posted by ghosthaunt11

Does anyone know when OS X 10.8.3 is expected to be released to the public?

Wednesday, February 6 at 2:00 PM PST

[katewes]

Originally Posted by Twimfy

I was going to ask the same thing. Who in their right mind would stay on Lion? You either come to ML or go back to SL.

I'm staying with Lion 10.7.4 because everything works well for me, with no discernible bugs. Not saying it is perfect for everyone, but for me it works. As for 10.7.5, I've read about bugs where Time Machine take forever to do a backup. As for 10.8, whilst it might be more polished, those people would not claim it is fine-tuned.

The thing is, I use the Mac for work and for me 10.7.4 just works, and I don't care about the fancier features in ML. I'll wait till you kind souls have wrought your life with the angst that comes with beta-testing Apple's early releases of OSX, and I'll get on board when it's much more stable. By that stage, all you poor people are getting ready for the next roller coaster ride to beta test 10.9.

Usually I sit it out till 10.x.6 when the OS is smooth as butter, but this time with Lion I had to jump on sooner than usual since I bought a new Mac, and saw benefit in synched Calendar and Address Books with iCloud. But by the time of 10.7.4, things were quite good already. I missed the circus with 10.7 to 10.7.3, glad to say, thanks to all you kind paid-up beta-testers. Where would Apple be without generous people who volunteer to pay a token fee of $30-40 to beta-test their software.

So I get by with Lion's 2 second shutdown, while you folk help Apple figure out why Mountain Lion take several 10's of seconds often to shut down.

I lament (not) about missing features like Facebook integration, and thicker scroll bars.

Everyone goes on about how ML is so smooth, but on my Mac, with a clean install of 10.7.4 and extra memory, things here are smooth enough already, sufficient for me to forget about the Mac and get on with my work (except for times when I get distracted by MacRumors forums), so I can afford to wait till you guys help Apple iron out the bugs.

I have some Macs on SL, but prefer Lion because of synching of Address Book and Calendar with iCloud.

[zz2k9]

Originally Posted by katewes

I'm staying with Lion 10.7.4 because everything works well for me, with no discernible bugs. Not saying it is perfect for everyone, but for me it works. As for 10.7.5, I've read about bugs where Time Machine take forever to do a backup. As for 10.8, whilst it might be more polished, those people would not claim it is fine-tuned.

The thing is, I use the Mac for work and for me 10.7.4 just works, and I don't care about the fancier features in ML. I'll wait till you kind souls have wrought your life with the angst that comes with beta-testing Apple's early releases of OSX, and I'll get on board when it's much more stable. By that stage, all you poor people are getting ready for the next roller coaster ride to beta test 10.9.

Usually I sit it out till 10.x.6 when the OS is smooth as butter, but this time with Lion I had to jump on sooner than usual since I bought a new Mac, and saw benefit in synched Calendar and Address Books with iCloud. But by the time of 10.7.4, things were quite good already. I missed the circus with 10.7 to 10.7.3, glad to say, thanks to all you kind paid-up beta-testers. Where would Apple be without generous people who volunteer to pay a token fee of $30-40 to beta-test their software.

So I get by with Lion's 2 second shutdown, while you folk help Apple figure out why Mountain Lion take several 10's of seconds often to shut down.

I lament (not) about missing features like Facebook integration, and thicker scroll bars.

Everyone goes on about how ML is so smooth, but on my Mac, with a clean install of 10.7.4 and extra memory, things here are smooth enough already, sufficient for me to forget about the Mac and get on with my work (except for times when I get distracted by MacRumors forums), so I can afford to wait till you guys help Apple iron out the bugs.

I have some Macs on SL, but prefer Lion because of synching of Address Book and Calendar with iCloud.

I totally agree. I went back from ML to Lion because of two major problems;
1 - Audio stutter system wide, playback music movies youtube, whatever.
2 - Sleep and external display issues. Often my mac would go to sleep with an attached monitor, and after a few hours the system would be awake but the fans are spinning full speed, screen black. I/O no feedback. only solution was a hard reset. This and no matter what my energy saver prefs are, the display will ALWAYS go to sleep after 60 seconds.

So I just had enough and went back to 10.7.5, and now i have total peace of mind.
I only miss pages and documents in the cloud. otherwise i am like you, i forget about the mac and just get on with work.
This yearly cycle of OS releases is another way to bag more cash and as a result makes for software that is buggy and in need of polishing. Snow Leopard was the only OS that was brilliant from release compared to Lion and ML.
Now soon we will see 10.9 with a bunch of new features. WOW big deal.
If you go on apple support forums, ML users have had audio issues from day one, and supposedly only until 10.8.3 is the issue being looked at.
That is disgraceful for apple.
Not asking for much here, just for an OS that does simple things properly. Dont give us shiny new features like notification centre to distract us from the underlying OS problems.

Just in case any forum member gets cute and starts mouthing off, I have a maxed out MBP 15 with 8gb ram and SSD, ive reinstalled and wiped my hard drive five times with 10.8 and nothing fixed the issues.

So in this case, Lion is a better OS because it actually works, for people who need to do work without headaches.

[RedGeminiPA]

Originally Posted by sshhoott

Wednesday, February 6 at 2:00 PM PST

Nope... Didn't come yet...

Looks like probably at least another week... ugh! At least Apple is trying to make all necessary changes before release.

http://9to5mac.com/2013/02/06/apple-...to-developers/

[sshhoott]

Originally Posted by RedGeminiPA

Nope... Didn't come yet...

Looks like probably at least another week... ugh! At least Apple is trying to make all necessary changes before release.

http://9to5mac.com/2013/02/06/apple-...to-developers/

Yeah, I thought it was coming, but hey at least I got the time kind of right for the new beta.

I think its still going to be couple of weeks.

[ThomasJL]

Originally Posted by Makosuke

I'm genuinely surprised at this comment--you're the only person I've heard make that claim.

So far as I could tell, even 10.8.0 was more polished than any version of 10.7 for most purposes, and I've heard almost no one claim otherwise.

Heck, for practical purposes 10.8.0 IS 10.7.6.

That sounds like an Apple apologist comment. So, I am the only person who you've heard claim that 10.7.5 is more stable than 10.8.0? Are you serious? How is it possible that a Mac OS version with zero bug fixes is more stable than the previous one with five bug fixes?

Look, I love Snow Leopard, and wish I had stayed on it (but that wasn't an option since I had to buy a mid-2012 Mac than shipped with Lion). I'm no fan of Lion, and I think that Mountain Lion has the potential to be a more stable OS than Lion, but it hasn't happened so far because it's only at 10.8.2 at the moment. Maybe by 10.8.3 (or 10.8.4 or 10.8.5, if those ever happen), Mountain Lion will be as stable as Lion.

By the way, "stable" does not mean "polished". The meaning of "stable" in the context of operating systems means "lacking many bugs".

[milo]

Originally Posted by ThomasJL

So, I am the only person who you've heard claim that 10.7.5 is more stable than 10.8.0?

Absolutely. And aside from stability, performance seems to be much better on 10.8.

How is it possible that a Mac OS version with zero bug fixes is more stable than the previous one with five bug fixes?

In the case of 10.8, it seems like much of the work they did was on bug fixes. You said yourself how much you liked 10.6 - 10.8 is a similar release where fixes were a higher priority than new features. I'm sorry you haven't found 10.8 as stable as 10.7 on your systems but your experience seems to be in the minority.

[Makosuke]

Originally Posted by ThomasJL

That sounds like an Apple apologist comment. So, I am the only person who you've heard claim that 10.7.5 is more stable than 10.8.0? Are you serious? How is it possible that a Mac OS version with zero bug fixes is more stable than the previous one with five bug fixes?

Milo more or less already replied with what I would have said, but yes, and I'm not an apologist. 10.7, while I liked it, was somewhat flakey; it was unquestionably less stable than 10.6, even by 10.7.5.

10.8, in contrast, was largely a bug-fix/polishing release of 10.7, so in my experiments and experience, yes, it absolutely is more stable--in the terms you describe--than 10.7. I don't think it's reached the level of 10.6.8 yet, which remains the most stable version of OSX in my experience (and the main version I have rolled out to the dozen Macs at work as a result).

While I used and enjoyed 10.7 at home, I wouldn't have put anyone on it at work unless I had to because of the glitches and bugs. 10.7.5 was doing better, but I was still running into a lot of issues on my three home systems, and the people I've done freelance troubleshooting for. 10.8, in contrast, was ready enough for prime time that I have a couple of work users on it, and just moved the server to it as well (which I'm regretting a bit due to SMBX not being ready for prime time as a Samba replacement, although 10.7 Server was so much worse it wasn't even an option).

The bottom line is, like 10.6, 10.8 was a polish release of the previous OS version, and so in what I think has been most people's experience it has been more stable than its predecessor. Obviously that's not your experience, but that was surprising to me given what I and a lot of others have experienced. I've heard of a lot of people going back to 10.6 from 10.7 or 10.8, but I've never heard of anybody going from 10.8 back to 10.7.

[Peace]

We're up to 12D68 now. Can't this be closed ?