It might, but I'd rather update once than twice (or more if I encounter problems). I also don't feel it would be right of Apple to expect users to jump through hoops to arrive at a decent OS experience. An 'inclusive' update would, IMHO, a more elegant way to proceed.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac OS X 10.5.2 Not Quite Ready Yet (9C30 Seeded)
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It might, but I'd rather update once than twice (or more if I encounter problems). I also don't feel it would be right of Apple to expect users to jump through hoops to arrive at a decent OS experience. An 'inclusive' update would, IMHO, a more elegant way to proceed.
Yes i understand what your saying,but how can you justify downloading from
apples site jumping through hoops.I download all my major updates this way
as you get the full update.It takes two clicks to download from software
update the same as going to apples site so whats the difference?
Sure, but whiny anti-fanboy complaints don't count, ok?
Agreed.
And, single reports of problems don't count - that could be a system that was messed up before the update.
At least three reports or the problem showing up as a warning on http://www.macfixit.com (or someplace similar).
I'd expect -and I'm probably not alone in this- to perform a single update and not have to repeat it, to achieve what it should have achieved in the first place. The 'difference' is that the onus to supply users (customers) with the best experience possible is up to Apple.
It should not be up to me, as a customer, to find ways to 'patch' what should have been part and parcel of current OS updates. I would, perhaps, not expect Microsoft to spare us the 'hooping'. I do, however, expect this from Apple, and this could be easily addressed within 10.5.2.
Why do you have to repeat it,if you knew downloading from the apple site
was the best option to begin with,im sure im not the only who knows this?
Your to supply customers/users bit is a load of tosh is it because you like
to see the software update globe with the two arrows around it appear on
your dock?.Also how is microsoft hooping again you have two choices
either download from there silly software update thing that pops up every
10min or go to there download site
I to hope 10.5.2 resolves this issue,but if you do a search yourll find a thread stating
the reason why apple didnt release the full update threw its software updater or
go to apples site theres a bit about ignoring SUID warnings and reasons given
You missed the whole point, that was just an example. Boot times, multi-tasking, etc.
And for me boot times make a huge difference since I live in farm country where power failures are frequent just from cows scratching their butts on poles with the power lines strung across. I like to play online games often when I get bored, I have the choice of waiting 3-4 minutes for my GF's Windoze box to start or my iMac. Both are rated the same speed and have have the same ram.
But her Compaq falls short on everything. For example, I opened an 800 MB scanned image in TIFF format on her machine and mine with PhotoShop CS.
Her Windoze box was still going 45 minutes later, and my iMac had it open in 3 seconds flat. We hit the reset button on her Compaq and just gave up.
Another simple example of raw power and speed. when I bought a Compaq System Pro 66 (back in the stone ages) for roughly $12,000 with all the best bells and whistles, I thought I was getting the fastest machine at the time. Lo and behold, one of my co-workers was configuring a new Mac ][fx rated at only 33 Mhz. For a joke we decided to run Sim City on both at the fastest speed.
Guess which machine won, and why I never bought another Windoze box again? I'll never believe in the lame hype the Pc side uses to sucker people in ever again. That year I bought a new ][fx and have stuck with Mac's ever since and for only $4,800 fully loaded!!
Anyways, way off topic, so back onto topic
Can't wait for 10.5.2, I can finally upgrade my nieces MBP from tiger finally. She's been waiting patiently for Leo to stabilize enough to switch up. I already have and love it!
I'm aware of the options and circumstances surrounding the SUID/permissions issues, and I can see we (you and I) have established our perspective differences clearly enough (something I can live with).
So, the machines had the same speed CPU, the same amount of RAM, the same speed and size disks with the same Photoshop work space configuration and the same version/rev of Photoshop? Neither machine had opened the file before, so there was no caching of data or thumbnails or displays? You were comparing OSX to XP or Vista?
It sounds to me like the Windows system ran out of memory - plain and simple. Using the pagefile as RAM is far slower than using real memory.
It also sounds to me like your Imac didn't read the file - since you'd need a multi-pathed Fibre Channel array with about 8 spindles in a RAID-0 to read 800 MB in 3 seconds.
I don't believe that your anecdote about TIFF speed is relevant to anything at all.
And, congratulations on your first 2 posts to MacRumors.