Mac OS X 10.3.2 7D18 (Server and Client) Seeded

[MacRumors]

Apple has seeded Mac OS X 10.3.2 7D18 Server and Client to developers, following in the footsteps of 7D15 and 7D12.

Mac OS X Client is reported to have improvements in Core OS, Graphics, Imaging, USB, Printing, International TExt, Core Services, Cocoa Framework and Applescript.

Mac OS X Server is reported to have improvements in Kerberos support, Server Admin and Workgroup Manager applications, Network Image Utility, QTSS Publisher, PostScript Printers, and MySQL.

The Mac OS X 10.3.2 update is due for final release by the end of this year.

 

[dho]

I am glad to see that they are making progress.

Anyone have any idea how large the file is currently?

 

[~Shard~]

Good to hear! Keep it up Apple - with every update, Panther will be come even better and better. (Hopefully!)

 

[Powerbook G5]

It sounds like .2 is going to be a pretty major update to Panther.

 

[Freg3000]

Originally posted by Powerbook G5
It sounds like .2 is going to be a pretty major update to Panther.

I agree. I think Spymac had an article on how 10.3.1 was mainly psychological, as it did not so much (it was only a few megabytes). Looks like 10.3.2 will have a lot of fixes in it.

 

[ITR 81]

Looks like Apple will delievery this one for Christmas.

Bring it on!

I want my Safari 1.2 please!

 

[JJTiger1]

Originally posted by Freg3000
10.3.1 was mainly psychological
{snippage}

Dare I say it: The G5 is all hype.

My QS G4-733 single processor running 10.3.0 feels as fast as a G5 2.0 duallie running 10.2.7.

The G5 2.0 ghz dual processor running Panther should feel at least three times faster than my G4.

The G5 duallie running Panther feels only marginally faster than my G4.

We should all benefit from the work being put into Panther to release the speed of the G5's.
=-=
JJ

 

[greenstork]

Originally posted by JJTiger1
Dare I say it: The G5 is all hype.

My QS G4-733 single processor running 10.3.0 feels as fast as a G5 2.0 duallie running 10.2.7.

The G5 2.0 ghz dual processor running Panther should feel at least three times faster than my G4.

The G5 duallie running Panther feels only marginally faster than my G4.

We should all benefit from the work being put into Panther to release the speed of the G5's.
=-=
JJ

Stop trolling

 

[djcobb44]

Originally posted by ITR 81
Looks like Apple will delievery this one for Christmas.

Bring it on!

I want my Safari 1.2 please!

Amen to that! I had to switch over to Mozilla Firebird because Safari seems so unstable lately.

 

[TomSmithMacEd]

Sounds like good progress. Wow Apple is just working hard to get new things out.

 

[negrito]

Originally posted by JJTiger1
Dare I say it: The G5 is all hype.

My QS G4-733 single processor running 10.3.0 feels as fast as a G5 2.0 duallie running 10.2.7.

The G5 2.0 ghz dual processor running Panther should feel at least three times faster than my G4.

The G5 duallie running Panther feels only marginally faster than my G4.

We should all benefit from the work being put into Panther to release the speed of the G5's.
=-=
JJ

what are you talking about?! i don't know what you are feeling but to compare two systems it is never good to just "feel".

i think you can't "feel" or rather see (on your screen) a difference in speed when just open safari or by reading mails. i work on a dual g4 1ghz and a dual g5 2ghz with panther 10.3.1 everyday and i stopped (with a chronometer) many rendering, opening, exporting, filtering etc operations on my most used programs like photoshop 7, illustrator 10, finalcut pro 4, flash mx 2004, dreamweaver mx 2004 and maya 5.

the only thing that i found out with my benchmarks is very logic and simple: most tasks (about 70%) are twice as fast on the dual g5. some are lower than twice as fast and some are higher than twice as fast. all this is just because the g5 (2ghz) processor runs at double speed of my g4 (1ghz). the g5 isn't mumbo jumbo! the main reason of its speed is the higher clockrate.

i don't want to discuss abstract benchmarks because i'm not interested in. i want some real application tests and at least i measured the speeds in seconds rather than just "feel" the speed.

btw: there wasn't a big difference in application speed between 10.3.1 and 10.2.8. the only application which really runs faster in panther is the finder and that's it. ...well that's already a lot...

i'm sorry (or not ) that you can't feel your powermac but at least i know that i bought a good machine that is at least as twice as fast as a dual g4 1ghz

 

[SeaFox]

Originally posted by djcobb44
Amen to that! I had to switch over to Mozilla Firebird because Safari seems so unstable lately.

You make that sound like a bad thing!

 

[wHo_tHe]

Originally posted by negrito
what are you talking about?! i don't know what you are feeling but to compare two systems it is never good to just "feel".

Give me a break. How fast a computer feels is the one benchmark that actually matters to most people. Most people don't time their computers any more than they time their coffee machine brewing or their garage door opening. They just know it's "faster than the old one" or "slower than the one at work."

Apple knows people want their computers to feel fast. Why do you think they write commonly-used files to a disk's fastest area? Or cache applications for faster relaunches? They're not stupid, and, in fact, they should do more to make their computers feel faster, like improving network directory display speed, or folder pop-ups in the dock.

Don't get me wrong, of course you are right that a dual G5 is much faster than previous models. But don't sell short how fast something feels.

 

[macnews]

Originally posted by wHo_tHe
Give me a break. How fast a computer feels is the one benchmark that actually matters to most people. Most people don't time their computers any more than they time their coffee machine brewing or their garage door opening. They just know it's "faster than the old one" or "slower than the one at work."

I agree, however, the two machines are running two different versions of OS X. I have the same machines at work but both running 10.2.7. I can tell you the "feel" of the G5 dual just kicks butt to the G4. Simple test, one 52 page magazine built in Indesign opens faster, scrolls faster and saves faster than on the G4 - to the tune of at least twice as fast in all but the scrolling. For scrolling it is 4x as fast, of course that I tribute in part to the better graphics card.

Now, if I just looked at internet, email, word, excel - not much of a noticable difference. Startup a little faster but hard to really notice because both are so short (relatively).

One little tip for those of you running a dual G5 2 Ghz under 10.2.x - make sure you have your programs optimized/update otherwise it will be slower. We were so excited to get up and running on our new G5 we didn't fully update Indesign - or remove a pesky font auto-activation from Suitcase. When we ran Indesign the thing was SLUG slow. I mean a 500 Mhz G4 was faster with ID! Once we removed the Suitcase plugin and updated ID all the way - flet like we were flying a jet fighter.

 

[ddbean]

size...

.

Anyone have any idea how large the file is currently? [/B]

Quote from Macommunity "On Friday, Apple released Mac OS X Update 10.3.2 Build 7D18 to it's developers with paid accounts. This update is 35.7 MB."

 

[Helmut Kool]

DMGs

I'm using 10.3.0 now because 10.3.1 seemed to break disk image file opening. Is it fixed in the current 10.3.2?

 

[manu chao]

Re: DMGs

Originally posted by Helmut Kool
I'm using 10.3.0 now because 10.3.1 seemed to break disk image file opening. Is it fixed in the current 10.3.2?

Check macintouch.com, over there somebody is claiming that if you update from 10.3.0 to 10.3.1 without having mounted at least one image in 10.3.0, mounting will be broken in 10.3.1.

 

[Trowaman]

This present under the tree says it's from Apple to all the Mac users. Merry X-mas to us all! I could deal with this present from Steve-o.

 

[mustang_dvs]

Remember "Wrath of Kahn?"

Originally posted by dho
Anyone have any idea how large the file is currently?

Well, I don't think my NDA lets me tell you the file sizes. But, if I were to go by the book, megabytes could seem like kilobytes.

By the book, the client update would be more than 30kb, and the server update would be more than 50kb... going by the book...

 

[kherdin]

Hopefully this update will be well-tested and won't break things, like 10.2.8. That's always a danger with big updates, so many things are changed that the chances that something breaks are pretty high, so let's all hope that Apple tests this one thoroughly.

 

[CaptainCaveman]

Re: Remember "Wrath of Kahn?"

But, if I were to go by the book, megabytes could seem like kilobytes.

Heh. I never could figure out how Khan could've been SO DENSE as to not figure out what they meant...

 

[ITR 81]

Hmm 35.7 megs now....by the time this sucker is released it will probably 40 or over 40 megs to DL. Looks like a long night for us 56k users.

 

[Wonder Boy]

Originally posted by TomSmithMacEd
Wow Apple is just working hard to get new things out.

they better work hard considering all the screw ups in the initial releases.

maybe we've been spoiled, but i dont think all theses security updates and OS patches should have been there in the first place. apple is slacking a little...


MY 300st POST!

 

[Helmut Kool]

Re: Re: DMGs

Originally posted by manu chao
Check macintouch.com, over there somebody is claiming that if you update from 10.3.0 to 10.3.1 without having mounted at least one image in 10.3.0, mounting will be broken in 10.3.1.

Thanks! I can't be sure if that was the reason, but now I have a working 10.3.1 installed.

 

[ddbean]

Re: Remember "Wrath of Kahn?"

Originally posted by mustang_dvs
Well, I don't think my NDA lets me tell you the file sizes. But, if I were to go by the book, megabytes could seem like kilobytes.

By the book, the client update would be more than 30kb, and the server update would be more than 50kb... going by the book...

I'm sorry and excuse my newbie question but are you saying that your Apple Dev NDA explictly prevents disclosure of a file size? (Or was this some sarcastic joke I missed)