Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Releases Mac OS X 10.6.1

Just completed the SU, repaired permissions, rebooted.

Safari no longer hangs up on me like it did before the update.

Firefox goes back into the toolbox. Safari is once again ready for prime time.
 
10.6.1 working well here. I didn't try to put my printer back on after I clean installed SL. I had other things but I had already planned to hook the printer back up this after noon when I realized last night I needed to print at home instead of at work. So when I saw that the update had printer drivers I don't know if that had any effect on my wireless printer working but it works. Took all of 10 min to install and set up. :D Printer: Canon MP620 Incase anyone wanted to know.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7C144 Safari/528.16)

Selected to install the update, laptop rebooted and now it just appears as if the os is going to load but nothing happens.... Should I be nervous???
 
Zoom now works smoothly in my iPhoto after the update, it was like slow motion before.
iTunes now scrolls smoothly too.

The only issue i have left now is my intermittent internet, it goes from working perfectly to not at all constantly.:(
 
Amdahl said:
This is called 'fragmentation.' You can also fix it with a 'defragmenter.'
Click to expand...

Personally, I thought Leopard was sluggish out the gate with 10.5.0 compared to Tiger on every G5 I own.

And it only got worse from there, but I tend to defragment my G5s often, so I'd say that its true. If you defragment often, you'll at least keep Leopard as fast as the day you originally installed it.

And another thing you can do is use Xslimmer to yank all the Intel code and languages you don't use. It doesn't necessarily make the applications much faster, but it definitely does clean up your hard drive and free up space and probably helps your hard drive a bit to access files quicker.

Compared to Tiger which was quick and fast and still is on all my G5s, Leopard still to this day has a Windows sluggish feel to it, too many spinning beach balls, too many browser crashes. I will give Apple credit for one thing though. I no longer have any kernel panics. God knows how many I reported in the earlier Leopard versions, I've lost track.

Finally, all of the optimizations that would solve some of the sluggishness have basically gone into Snow Leopard instead and left PowerPC users at the alter after paying for the $129 marriage license. :(
 
mrj412 said:
I think this may be it ... If you have not updated the flash plugin manually and have the 10.6.0 flash files, the small update can patch them. The manual update of flash to the latest version prior to applying 10.6.1 requires the full update since the updater does not see the 10.6.0 flash files and cannot simply patch them.
Click to expand...

That's possible but it is hard to believe that so many people getting the 75MB update had updated their flash version.

I never updated Flash on my 4850 equipped iMac and got the 9MB update. Running software update again shows no new updates for my Mac.
 
Totally JACKED my unibody 2.4 MB. Every sleep forces me to reset the pmu. Simply doesn't wake up. Not a good update.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7C144 Safari/528.16)

After the reboot, loads to a blue screen, little circle displays then flashes and back to the blue screen... any suggestions???
 
HyperZboy said:
And it only got worse from there, but I tend to defragment my G5s often, so I'd say that its true. If you defragment often, you'll at least keep Leopard as fast as the day you originally installed it.
Click to expand...

In HFS+ systems there should be hardly any reason to ever defragment. I seriously doubt that a measurable performance difference can be discerned unless you are running on incredibly low disk space. I do tons of compiling under OS X which in theory should lead to tons of fragmentation issues with itty bitty files being created and destroyed over and over. Yet I am not seeing any degradation in compile time as the system ages. I am confident that most people who defragment do so without actually determining the true issue that is slowing their computer down.

Let the PC system admins waste their time defragmenting. It's all they know how to do anyway...
 
Mac mini late 2006 I believe. Core duo 1.66 cd burner 2gb ram 60gb hd.

Just installed snow on top of regular without the snow. More snappy and even my desktop photo looks brighter and more crisp.

And it also asked for 10.6.1. in software update so I went ahead and did it. Only 9.8mb. Have not tried my dads mackbook pro yet. That will be next.
 
Wow! Blew some dust out of my iMac vents and it seems to be running so much faster and Safari doesn't crash anymore! :D
 
9mb vs 75mb

Sorry if this has been mentioned in on of the previous messages, but I believe the difference between the 9mb update and the 75mb update all has to do with iTunes 9. 10.6 shipped by default with iTunes 8. I updated to iTunes9 last night. Today, my update was only 9mb. So, for those of you with the 9mb update: did you update to iTunes 9 yesterday? And, for those with the 75mb update: open iTunes - have you magically been updated to 9.0?

The 10.6.1 update solved my only issue: sluggish graphics peformance out of my ATI 3870 card on my 2008 Mac Pro. I was getting terrible performance out of Aperture, and videos would freeze (while the audio continued) in both QuickLook and QuickTime. So, as those are now all performing wonderfully, I'm pretty confident that a graphics card driver update was included in the 9mb update.
 
Matthewlee said:
Sorry if this has been mentioned in on of the previous messages, but I believe the difference between the 9mb update and the 75mb update all has to do with iTunes 9. 10.6 shipped by default with iTunes 8. I updated to iTunes9 last night. Today, my update was only 9mb. So, for those of you with the 9mb update: did you update to iTunes 9 yesterday? And, for those with the 75mb update: open iTunes - have you magically been updated to 9.0?
Click to expand...

Nope that's not it. I just ran SU on my intel mac mini and it showed TWO updates. iTunes 9 (80+mb) and 10.6.1 (9MB)

So whatever makes it use the other 66MB, it's not iTunes :)
 
10.6.1 on my 2.53" 15" uMBP (late '08) has resulted in dramatically reduced CPU usage, fan doesn't spin up so much anymore. Previously, Firefox and Skype used to suck up CPU, Youtube would really cause it to sweat, but now even with Youtube, its way lower, lower than what I saw even with 10.5.8 previously.

I don't know what happened, but the update is making a huge difference for me.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7C144 Safari/528.16)

Re installed SL ... all is back!!
 
75.2MB on 10.6 server and client on a Mac Pro and MacBook Air respectively.

Matthewlee said:
Sorry if this has been mentioned in on of the previous messages, but I believe the difference between the 9mb update and the 75mb update all has to do with iTunes 9. 10.6 shipped by default with iTunes 8. I updated to iTunes9 last night. Today, my update was only 9mb. So, for those of you with the 9mb update: did you update to iTunes 9 yesterday? And, for those with the 75mb update: open iTunes - have you magically been updated to 9.0?
Click to expand...

I've had iTunes 9 and my update was still 75.2MB
 
HyperZboy said:
Compared to Tiger which was quick and fast and still is on all my G5s, Leopard still to this day has a Windows sluggish feel to it, too many spinning beach balls, too many browser crashes. I will give Apple credit for one thing though. I no longer have any kernel panics. God knows how many I reported in the earlier Leopard versions, I've lost track.
Click to expand...

I never had crash problems with Leopard, but it was definitely not as fast on most G5s, with the exception of Quad G5s that have the 970MP processor. I attribute this to the larger cache on the 970MP. (Although, the extra cores may be a factor as well.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back