Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
But... Mail still crashes if you drag a file to the dock icon (and have at least one signature and plain-text composing)

I can reproduce this behaviour - it beachballs. Anyone else?

I can confirm this behavior as well. I didn't remove signatures or change plain-text composition to see if it goes away.

I also get this behavior when trying to select files and use the "Services"->"Mail"->"Send this file" and had previously sent in a bug report on that.
 
Sorry if this has been mentioned, but Pages documents (and I guess keynote, but I have not tried), now are different in QL; some don't work, but for multi-page documents, they are shown like this:

picture2a9a15.png

Mine doesn't do that. How did you get yours to do that?
 
I'm having a real hard time understanding just what the heck is so darn difficult for people to comprehend here. It really boggles the mind.

Cmd-clicking a folder in the Dock does NOT open that folder. It opens the PARENT folder.

Example for those having difficulty with abstract ideas:

Cmd-clicking the Documents folder in the Dock does NOT open the Documents folder meaning I do NOT get a window showing me all the documents and files I have in it. What it DOES do is open my Home directory (the PARENT folder of Documents) with the Documents folder conveniently selected for me, right there next to my Downloads, Pictures, etc... folders.

At first I thought that Hyper was an arrogant twit, but reading some of the responses here and all the "ha! you are wrong, it works for me" replies of people with absolutely zero reading comprehension skills I am beginning to think Hyper is a mild-mannered calm person.

You know what, your right about what you are saying when it comes to CMD-Clicking folders in the Dock. I asked for this to be explained because I generally don't CMD-Click anything.
I just now tried it and see your point.
IMO I don't see this is a flaw or a big deal, its the way OS X runs, why is it such a problem? Maybe that way works for a lot of OS X users.

One note, don't be so arrogant, I only asked a simple question, it's only a computer, it's not a life threatening situation to come across so abrasive to many people on this matter.
 
Pro Tools Issues with Leopard... STILL!!!

Does anyone else have this issue, or know of a solution:

I've been waiting and waiting and waiting for this day to come, and now that it's here, I smtill have the same bloody problem I had before. I've installed 10.5.3, and now that Digidesign has come out with a pre-release of a so-called 'compatible' version of Pro Tools (7.4.2pr), I installed that. I checked the "Known Issues" document, and my issue does not turn up there, so I thought this had to be fixed because it is so blatant.

My issue seems to be more with the Core Audio driver than Pro Tools itself. Pro Tools runs fine and the playback through my 002R to my studio monitors is fine. I just can't seem to get iTunes, Safari, or any other application to playback through my 002R out to my studio monitors even though I go into sys preferences and go to Sound and choose "DIGI002 HW" from the list of possible sound output choices. When I do that...silence!

This worked fine in Tiger. I've been ping-ponged back and forth between Apple saying it's a DigiDesign issue, and DigiDesign saying it's an Apple issue..... I don't ****ing care who's issue it is, both of them are supposed to be working together to resolve such things! I have reported the issue to digi on their website through their bug-report, but fear that they will release a fully qualified version of their software with Leopard, and this still won't be fixed!

someone please tell me I'm not the only one!
 
Mine doesn't do that. How did you get yours to do that?

Sorry if this has been mentioned, but Pages documents (and I guess keynote, but I have not tried), now are different in QL; some don't work, but for multi-page documents, they are shown like this:

picture2a9a15.png

Commenting on both of these posts.

@ psychofreak: That has been a feature in Leopard since it came out

@pbbaker & psychofreak: You can establish this quite easily, when saving any pages, keynote, or numbers file, check "Include preview in document", in makes the file slightly bigger, but gives you the feature that psychofreak pointed out. Otherwise it would show up like PowerFullMac (thats his post with the pic)
________________
To pitch in on the CMD+stack click opens the contents of the stack in finder. I am all the way with hyperboy, CMD+clicking a stack opens its parent folder. CONTROL+clicking a stack opens it right click view with extra options, the first one being open the stack in finder, the other being "show in finder", which opens the parent folder just as you do CMD+Clicking it.

The only way I can think of any confusion here, are people who have setup right click in their mice, or have modified shortcuts, and how CMD, control, and everything works. But the official standard based unmodified leopard way, from my view, not modifying my mouse controls but faster tracking, or playing with my keyboard shortcuts, CMD+clicking a stack opens the parent folder.
 
I have a simple question. Why doesn't Software Update automatically check for updates (like Windows Automatic Update)? If a Mac owner never visits a forum he would never know about them. The update doesn't even appear (prominently) on their Front page or the download page.
Alan

Uh...what?

xptpio.jpg
 
You know what, your right about what you are saying when it comes to CMD-Clicking folders in the Dock. I asked for this to be explained because I generally don't CMD-Click anything.
I just now tried it and see your point.
IMO I don't see this is a flaw or a big deal, its the way OS X runs, why is it such a problem? Maybe that way works for a lot of OS X users.

A couple more points about 10.5.3...

1) I can fully understand why Windows switchers and first time Mac users or even people upgrading from an old Mac OS 9 machine to Mac OS X might see this "Single Click on a Folder in the Dock and it opens the folder" issue as unimportant, not to mention people who've never even dragged important and regularly used folders to their dock in the past.

BUT, this Single Click Opens a Folder from Dock feature has been there since almost the beginning of Mac OS X, at least Jaguar, Panther, & Tiger I'm certain.

Taking away one of the simplest ease of use features of Mac OS X seems like a huge flub to me and this is a daily annoyance to me using Mac OS X Leopard since I have MANY folders in my dock, all different kinds, some personal, some business, not to mention it is probably the simplest of all Leopard fixes people are requesting to fix.

2) An update to a comment about 10.5.3 not working on QS G4s...
I've had no problems after installing 10.5.3 on my Quicksilver G4 867MHz, technically the earliest supported Powermac G4 tower, well except for the fact that it will probably take 3 HOURS to index the drives! :(
Oh, and if you really attempt to use your QS during the indexing process, well, I wish you luck as you might even experience a kernal panic. Best thing is to install it and go to bed, wake up in the morning and you have new Quicksilver running 10.5.3! :)

3) Disk permission repair is still a disaster in Leopard's Disk Utility program. All Apple added with 10.5.3 was a warning that it could take several minutes, times to complete are still either non-existent or wrong. And yes "several minutes" is quite optimistic on a Leopard supported Quicksilver Mac!

Finally, oh WOW, my Quicksilver indexing just went from 3 hours to 2 hours, my bad! :D
 
A couple more points about 10.5.3...

1) I can fully understand why Windows switchers and first time Mac users or even people upgrading from an old Mac OS 9 machine to Mac OS X might see this "Single Click on a Folder in the Dock and it opens the folder" issue as unimportant, not to mention people who've never even dragged important and regularly used folders to their dock in the past.

BUT, this Single Click Opens a Folder from Dock feature has been there since almost the beginning of Mac OS X, at least Jaguar, Panther, & Tiger I'm certain.

Taking away one of the simplest ease of use features of Mac OS X seems like a huge flub to me and this is a daily annoyance to me using Mac OS X Leopard since I have MANY folders in my dock, all different kinds, some personal, some business, not to mention it is probably the simplest of all Leopard fixes people are requesting to fix.

You're making a seriously wrong assumption, you don't have to be a new Mac user or a switcher to not "need" certain features from the older OS. FYI I may have been using Macs longer than you, I've been on the Mac OS full time since OS 8.5 and as I mentioned I don't see it as a big deal.
There were some really cool features back in the day on Mac OS 8-9 that did not make it to OS X but it hasn't hurt my productivity.

Don't take this as being only towards you but IMO the ease of use of the Macintosh has created a lot of laziness and pickiness for some computer users. For goodness sake, you can right-click on the stack folder and choose Open xx-folder into a Finder window.
Or you can open the finder and choose Documents on the side bar.
I'm not saying it was a great idea for Apple to have cut the option but I just don't see it as something to make such a major rant about, but to each his own. Honestly all these years I've been on the Macintosh I have never used this feature and I am a power user.
 
Mine doesn't do that. How did you get yours to do that?
Automatic after the 10.5.3
@ psychofreak: That has been a feature in Leopard since it came out

@pbbaker & psychofreak: You can establish this quite easily, when saving any pages, keynote, or numbers file, check "Include preview in document", in makes the file slightly bigger, but gives you the feature that psychofreak pointed out. Otherwise it would show up like PowerFullMac (thats his post with the pic)
I always did, and only now did it start to give me the left hand pane.
 
Taking away one of the simplest ease of use features of Mac OS X seems like a huge flub to me and this is a daily annoyance to me using Mac OS X Leopard since I have MANY folders in my dock, all different kinds, some personal, some business, not to mention it is probably the simplest of all Leopard fixes people are requesting to fix.

I should have included this in my last post. You're now calling it a "fix"? It's not a problematic issue, it's feature that's no longer.
Now, while I agree with you that it's probably simple for Apple to place the feature back there are also a LONG list of simple fixes that others want, do I have to mention, "green button", "maximizing", "translucent menus"...
 
I should have included this in my last post. You're now calling it a "fix"? It's not a problematic issue, it's feature that's no longer.
Now, while I agree with you that it's probably simple for Apple to place the feature back there are also a LONG list of simple fixes that others want, do I have to mention, "green button", "maximizing", "translucent menus"...

Personally, I'm glad it's no longer a feature. It's the main thing that drove me nuts about the dock. I hated trying to right-click, accidentally doing a regular click, and having the window pop open. I think Apple should probably return that as an option in the dock, but I'm certainly never going to miss it.

Hyper, why don't you create a subfolder in the folder in question, give it the same name, then put THAT folder in the dock. CMD-click it will open up its parent folder, which is the one you want to begin with. Just a thought.
 
I've got a Penryn MBP which I've had for about three months now and yesterday I updated to 10.5.3 and I've run into one "annoying" issue:

Display Brightness - Every time I reboot, the option "Automatically adjust brightness as ambient light changes"
 
So Far, So Good

I backed up with SuperDuper and installed. No issues. My main concern was that Sound Track Pro continued to work. It does. Also Photoshop CS3 with installed plug-ins. Mail and Firefox seem fine. No "lost memory" or any other hardware issue.

Knock on wood, for me this seems like a perfectly fine update.
 
Oh I imagine OS X is complex under the hood. the Unix/Linux kernals are fragmented (what I mean is, while the root kernal is the same - Unix;Linux distributions differ a lot in how they are assembles ontop of the root kernal). So you take a Unix/Linux kernal (in this case OS Xis free BSD), and then apply the best, friendliest desktop on top of the root - i image there is a lot of code behind it to make it all work. Linux may not be a complex, but it is true Linux apps are slower comeing. I think one of the things that make linux apps slower coming is the fact of the distributions being so fragments and a number of linux companies were here today, gone tomorrow (or they just pretty much dropped out of the main stream - slackware, caldera, mandrake, red hat, Suse [who is now Novell], Lindows, etc).


What I meant by America develops it, but is slow to implement... it was that the internet was started by the US military in needs to share information quickly, then it got released (for lack of a better term) to the civilian population. Also America developed networking and wireless technology. I read many articles where wireless (and even hard wired) internet runs at killer speeds in developed countries outside of the US. Here in America, we have been slow to implement wireless technology (they blame it on cost as to why most cities do not have WiMax). Also the cost to get any bandwith is expensive, so yes if it were faster and cheaper I would have had a server in my home and would have offered more on my now closed down website.

America invents a lot of things, but then we outsource it to other countries and with the cheaper cost of living and cheaper to produce the item in those countries - they tend to take more advantage of it. Also, since most everything in America is developed my american companies, but then made overseas - we pay a hefty price to import it back in.

I think the other issue with why wireless is not as good as other countries is the fact that in other countries, you have a lot of people crowded into cities. Here in the US, we like to spread out, so try to implement a wireless in an area where houses can be 100's of feet to miles apart. Even though my area is built up (and still growing), they still consider us to rural to put in city water, sewer, cable tv, trash pick up. My internet is DSL and I pay (eh hem, my work pays $45/month for 1.5mps residental. For the same speed, but if your a business you will pay $65-$80/month - same wires, same risk of downtime as residential, no gurantee it will get you up quicker.
The wired DSL market in the US was the first if I recall correctly to have wide market penetration. I was in the US in the 90s and did not want to move back to somewhere with dial-up (and pay per minute for local calls too). But nowadays in Europe and Asia the broadband market in most countries has not only caught up, it has seriously surpassed the US based on what you're saying.

For the same residential prices you're paying, we get 10-20x faster data transfer speeds + IP (video) telephony + tv packages via an ADSL line. My ISP happens to use a different technology (digital antenna) for tv. There are many companies competing with each other so you can choose from many, many (ADSL) ISPs.
 
I think the other issue with why wireless is not as good as other countries is the fact that in other countries, you have a lot of people crowded into cities. Here in the US, we like to spread out, so try to implement a wireless in an area where houses can be 100's of feet to miles apart.
Sweden is the size of California and has only 9 million inhabitants. The population density is 20/sq km, in the U.S. it's 31/sq km. The largest city here in Sweden is just over 1 million people. So we're as scattered as can be. And the US has so much more $$$ than Sweden it's not even funny. Yet anyone can get 24 mbit DSL or cable over here unless they live in a mountain shack, and in most towns over pop. 50,000 the majority can get 100 mbit fibreLAN. A 100 mbit upgrade is planned for Q3 2008 for cable as well. 3G was rolled out five years ago and the turbo-3G upgrade started last year, about two thirds of the population are covered now and the goal is 95%. Unlimited HSDPA access, 7.2Mbps at no extra cost for subscribers to a twelve-month flat-rate including W-CDMA/EDGE/Wi-Fi internet access, for about 30 USD / month.

In other words... no, the problem in the US isn't population density, or funds, or technology, or profitability... so what is it? And more importantly why do you put up with it? You guys should be picketing across the country...
 
In other words... no, the problem in the US isn't population density, or funds, or technology, or profitability... so what is it? And more importantly why do you put up with it? You guys should be picketing across the country...

1. Because your country is only the size of California. The US it just a tad larger than that.

2. How much do you pay in taxes?
 
Sweden is the size of California and has only 9 million inhabitants. The population density is 20/sq km, in the U.S. it's 31/sq km. The largest city here in Sweden is just over 1 million people. So we're as scattered as can be. And the US has so much more $$$ than Sweden it's not even funny. Yet anyone can get 24 mbit DSL or cable over here unless they live in a mountain shack, and in most towns over pop. 50,000 the majority can get 100 mbit fibreLAN. A 100 mbit upgrade is planned for Q3 2008 for cable as well. 3G was rolled out five years ago and the turbo-3G upgrade started last year, about two thirds of the population are covered now and the goal is 95%. Unlimited HSDPA access, 7.2Mbps at no extra cost for subscribers to a twelve-month flat-rate including W-CDMA/EDGE/Wi-Fi internet access, for about 30 USD / month.

In other words... no, the problem in the US isn't population density, or funds, or technology, or profitability... so what is it? And more importantly why do you put up with it? You guys should be picketing across the country...

the U.S. is a BIG country, and I mean BIG. like you said, Sweden is the size of california. it's a huge investment to bring very fast internet to the masses, and I suppose the demand just isn't widespread enough to justify the cost...
 
1. Because your country is only the size of California. The US it just a tad larger than that.
Yes but the potential customer base is 300 million, thus any carrier should have 33 times the muscle. If Sweden is 9 million spread over an area the size of California, then why can't the 17 million living in LA City and metro -- with a population density 160 times higher than Sweden's, over an area that's 1% of the size of Sweden -- have broadband and wireless capacity that makes Sweden look like something out of the Cretaceous period?

2. How much do you pay in taxes?
Truckloads, so? The services I referred to are all provided by the private sector, it's not like we're talking 'government cheese broadband' here.

the U.S. is a BIG country, and I mean BIG. like you said, Sweden is the size of california. it's a huge investment to bring very fast internet to the masses, and I suppose the demand just isn't widespread enough to justify the cost...
Yes I know it's BIG but I'm not talking about the ability to sit in some remote cornfield and enjoy HDSPA. I was talking about the big cities where these excuses don't apply.
 
One note, don't be so arrogant, I only asked a simple question, it's only a computer, it's not a life threatening situation to come across so abrasive to many people on this matter.

Actually HLdan my diatribe wasn't directed at you. You asked a legitimate question which I hope I answered.

The other folks who were posting little "ha! you fools, it works for me!" posts all the while completely missing the original point were causing me to lose faith in humanity.
 
Actually HLdan my diatribe wasn't directed at you. You asked a legitimate question which I hope I answered.

The other folks who were posting little "ha! you fools, it works for me!" posts all the while completely missing the original point were causing me to lose faith in humanity.

Oh, well thanks much for clarifying that!;) I thought my basic question annoyed you as honestly I had no knowledge about this CMD-Click thing with the Dock folders.
My apologies for the misunderstanding as well.
 
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9954408-7.html

"The vulnerability, which affects systems including Windows and Mac OS X, could allow an attacker to take control of the computer or cause it to crash if the user opens specially crafted Flash content, according to the advisory."

Note that this vulnerability is a scripting vulnerability, so PPC/x86/x64 is not relevant. The Flash player runs the script, not the OS or CPU.

That link to a cute Utube video might be an invitation to disaster....

No, I don't believe that's the case. Per Adobe's advisory, the CVE-2007-0071 vulnerability, which is reportedly the one that's being widely exploited in the wild, can allow arbitrary code execution (not just actions that the Flash engine is capable of). That implies native code (probably injected via a buffer overflow in the scripting engine).
 
No, I don't believe that's the case. Per Adobe's advisory, the CVE-2007-0071 vulnerability, which is reportedly the one that's being widely exploited in the wild, can allow arbitrary code execution (not just actions that the Flash engine is capable of). That implies native code (probably injected via a buffer overflow in the scripting engine).

Yes, I agree. Mac OS X is vulnerable in theory. In order for it to work in practice, the system must not be using randomized function addresses, which I know OS X does do in most cases(Vista too). In the Windows&Vista case, the Flash player DLL is not marked by Adobe to support random function addresses, and so they are predictable by a virus.

At least, that is my recollection of what I read on the original vulnerability.
 
Did anyone answer the question about why some of the download sizes were different? 10.5.3 was smaller for the MacBook than for the MacBook Pro. Also , I didn't get the raw photo patch for iPhoto for the MacBook but did for the MacBook Pro. Hmmm.
 
A couple more points about 10.5.3...
3) Disk permission repair is still a disaster in Leopard's Disk Utility program. All Apple added with 10.5.3 was a warning that it could take several minutes, times to complete are still either non-existent or wrong. And yes "several minutes" is quite optimistic on a Leopard supported Quicksilver Mac!

There's nothing wrong with Leopard's disk utility! Do a google search for it, when you repair permissions it is doing quite a few other things, which is why it takes so long.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.