Sidebar Sidebar
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)

DocSmitty said:
Could be worse...

Vista SP1 is done, and not available until March so the new systems ship with it the same time it's available to upgrade with.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and this is my issue with some of the whiners on this forum. Microsoft released Vista a year ago on Jan 30th and SP1 still won't be available until next month and Vista REALLY needs this update.

Apple immediately put out 10.5.1 right after Leopard was released and 10.5.2 is coming up soon. Apple is spot on with maintaining it's OS and for some of the forum members here Apple's timing is still not good enough and they want it to come faster and for what????
Let's see, they (some forum members) don't care of the real system fixes, they want Stacks hierarchical folders and the switch to turn of the damn translucent menu bar. Stupid stuff that does not improve the system operation. We need bug fixes first and Apple needs to take their time or we will just end up with more issues.
 
AidenShaw said:
And, by the way, did you see that Vista SP1 will be a 60 MB download, and 10.5.2 is going to be 400 MB or more?

So, a year after Vista ships we get 60 MB, and a few months after Leopard ships we get 400 MB. Do the math, one company is on top of things....
Click to expand...

Well, considering that every Windows binary is one processor architecture and one bit size (32 OR 64 depending on which edition you got) then that's a factor of 4 you have to apply to the download size (universal binaries are a neat idea but space efficient they are not!)

So that makes it 60MB versus 100MB (or 240 versus 400, whichever you prefer.)

Personally, I prefer Apple's approach. They DO rush our security updates pretty quickly, and most of the patch Tuesday stuff from Microsoft is just security releases (yes they do a lot more of them, they are under significantly more attack and they have more security problems due to a long history of security negligence which is still haunting them, at least in my opinion.)

If you take "Patch Tuesday" as security releases, and compare feature and bug fixes as being "service packs" then I believe Apple's approach is better.

But that's just me. I also think that the holistic approach Apple takes is better. You can compare individual parts of the PC versus Apple puzzle, and Apple will win some, and MSFT will win some, but in the end, you use an entire computer, and I think when considered holistically, the "it just works" catch phrase, is a reasonably good proxy for how most users (of which I don't think anyone who posts to a macrumors forum qualifies) view their macs. :)

be well

t
 
I couldn't care less if they release it tomorrow or two months from now. 10.5.1 is quite stable for me...wifi works just fine....I haven't one any kernel panics, all my apps work....I'm very satisfied right now.
 
Charging for Updates

So I know there has been some kidding about Apple charging for software updates to OS X, but does anyone know why they aren't required to charge based on the same law that required them to charge for the Airport Update or the Touch Update (Sarbanes-Oxley)? I mean I know that most of the updates in 10.5.2 will be bug fixes but the stacks functionality and a couple of others seem like they are adding functionality to the product (however marginal). How far could Apple go in adding functionality to OS X before they would HAVE to charge us?
 
TPALTony said:
If you take "Patch Tuesday" as security releases, and compare feature and bug fixes as being "service packs" then I believe Apple's approach is better.
Click to expand...

But that's not the case.

The security updates on Patch Tuesday are the high priority fixes, the minor bug fixes and feature updates are the optional but recommended fixes.

"Patch Tuesday" is not security only....


TPALTony said:
Well, considering that every Windows binary is one processor architecture and one bit size (32 OR 64 depending on which edition you got) then that's a factor of 4 you have to apply to the download size (universal binaries are a neat idea but space efficient they are not!)
Click to expand...

I hadn't seen the announcement that every fat binary in 10.5 had code for:
  • Legacy PPC 32-bit
  • Legacy PPC 64-bit (G5 only)
  • x86 (for the Yonah systems)
  • x64 (for Merom and Xeon systems)

Or, maybe you should claim "6x", and split "Legacy PPC 32-bit" into G3 and G4 (AltiVec) systems and x64 into SSE4 (Penryn) and SSE3 systems.

You pulled "4x" out of your hat. Admit it, it's a nonsense argument without any facts to back it up. :D
 
itsmequinn said:
So I know there has been some kidding about Apple charging for software updates to OS X, but does anyone know why they aren't required to charge based on the same law that required them to charge for the Airport Update or the Touch Update (Sarbanes-Oxley)? I mean I know that most of the updates in 10.5.2 will be bug fixes but the stacks functionality and a couple of others seem like they are adding functionality to the product (however marginal). How far could Apple go in adding functionality to OS X before they would HAVE to charge us?
Click to expand...

The way I understand it is that the iPhone and AppleTV are accounted for over a two year period and everything else is not. So Apple can add completely new applications to those and not charge - with OSX they would have to charge if they added additional applications that are outside the current scope of 10.5. All of the updates coming are refinements and bug fixes, none of them are new applications.

This is all for tax code and accounting purposes.
 
itsmequinn said:
So I know there has been some kidding about Apple charging for software updates to OS X, but does anyone know why they aren't required to charge based on the same law that required them to charge for the Airport Update or the Touch Update (Sarbanes-Oxley)? I mean I know that most of the updates in 10.5.2 will be bug fixes but the stacks functionality and a couple of others seem like they are adding functionality to the product (however marginal). How far could Apple go in adding functionality to OS X before they would HAVE to charge us?
Click to expand...

Possibly OS X is grandfathered as having been initially released prior to that statute. Presumably the next architecture after OS X will be subject. Windows Vista and XP would also be grandfathered as it is an extension of Windows NT, also pre statute.
 
Maybe we will finally get a decent X.5 version. For the size, that's don't really scare me, they may have fix many graphical stuff (maybe some vector graphic, the menu bar, dock image... into the package that take a lot of space), many driver (apple TV take 2, ...). The size isn't not an absolute relation to number of bug fix.

I'm a OS X user since X.0, all I can said is never upgrade for production before X.#.2 or X.#.3 and never go upgrade to the two last minor update they mess up more thing then they solve by getting bad implementation of the next major release feature.

I hope Apple will focus a bit more on OS.X and a little less on Apple TV, but I sincerely doubt it since they make more money out of it.
 
I hadn't seen the announcement that every fat binary in 10.5 had code for:
  • Legacy PPC 32-bit
  • Legacy PPC 64-bit (G5 only)
  • x86 (for the Yonah systems)
  • x64 (for Merom and Xeon systems)

You pulled "4x" out of your hat. :D
Click to expand...

Yeap, anyway Universal binary aren't twice as much bigger, many ressource are share, only the binary code is different. For 32 and 64 bits, most thing don't need or even benefit from it, so it still be not a linear function.
 
I'm perfectly fine with 10.5.1. I've only had two problems with Leopard, and that's the fact that it didn't work with my printer (but I got a new one for Christmas anyway) and it won't work with Photoshop CS1 and 2. I really hope the new update will make Photoshop usable on my Mac, but I doubt it.

But what's weird is that my school got Leopard and their Photoshop CS2 works great. I'm hoping when I get my Macbook Pro then Photoshop will work, but I guess we'll see.
 
Now that pretty much everything runs OS X how does that work? Is the OS X Team responsible for OS X on the iPods, iPhone, Apple TV, and Macs? Or would there be different teams in each to do the OS for each product?

I am also suspicious that things have been slowed down because the Apple TV update is switching from Tiger OS X to Leopard.
 
Quillz said:
SP1 is to be released very soon, so Apple will likely have sent 10.5.2 by that point.
Click to expand...

LOL WOW, and it only took them LITERALLY ONE YEAR LOL. That is PATHETIC! And now the sweet Windows 7 won't be out till 2011 or 2012 with their AWESOME multi-touch.... OH, wait, Macs already have that LOL. Microsoft amazes me ;)
 
MacFly123 said:
LOL WOW, and it only took them LITERALLY ONE YEAR LOL. That is PATHETIC! And now the sweet Windows 7 won't be out till 2011 or 2012 with their AWESOME multi-touch.... OH, wait, Macs already have that LOL. Microsoft amazes me ;)
Click to expand...
I hate replying to messages like these, because I love all three of my macs, but hate when people are so vastly misinformed about the MS side.

There have been multiple security and bugfixes for Vista since its release. Probably close to 20.

A service pack usually represents significant and increased features/functionality on the Microsoft side, as well as rolling all of the smaller security and bugfixes released throughout the year before its release.

The jump from XP SP1 to SP2 was just as big as the jump from Tiger to Leopard, only folks with legit copies of XP got it for free.
 
I'll echo the sentiment that a stable release is better than no release but I'd rather they start getting some fixes out instead of trying to fix all issues in a single update. As it stands today, Leopard has real issues that are driving me nuts and while none of them causes my OS to crash, I do want them addressed sooner rather than later. Currently its been about 2-months since anything was fixed and at this stage in the game that's not fast enough.
 
About the future of OS X:

Someone said something like Apple probably isn't sure where to go with it. I think they will continue working on ZFS and I'm sure upgrading the file system will bring positive results for users and developers. Don't expect to see full ZFS functionality by default in 10.5.x. Aside from that, I'm not sure what they will do other than bug fixes, stability and security enhancements, and improvements to their companion software like iLife and iWork. Well, I think input advancements like multi-touch will be improved in the software to better the experience of OS X. And they have a lot of work to do on .mac.

About 10.5.2:

Remember all the talk about heavily updating 10.5 to take advantage of SSE4? That would explain the huge size of the update as a lot of code would be updated and recompiled. I think to Jobs that update is a MUST to make the new Penryn-based MBPs faster and get glorified reviews and spur sales.

Additionally, updating all that code for SSE4 is likely to throw bugs into the mix. Heavy testing is a must before releasing a huge system-wide update.

Finally, I think many things point to Apple releasing Leopard before they should have. They are cleaning up their platform now. If that's the case, then they need to clean it up and fix bugs that were based on a hacked together implementation to get Leopard out the door.

It seems that they have been sliding developers around to maintain their speedy release cycles rather than hiring more programmers to get this all cleaned up. On the other hand, OS X seems to power all the new gadgets across the board and I'm sure Apple has selectively hired the best people for the job.

But what do I know? I'm just waiting to buy my first Mac and get into developing on the Mac platform. Learned Java all through college but...meh...Java....;)
 
syndalis said:
I hate replying to messages like these, because I love all three of my macs, but hate when people are so vastly misinformed about the MS side.

[...]

The jump from XP SP1 to SP2 was just as big as the jump from Tiger to Leopard, only folks with legit copies of XP got it for free.
Click to expand...

That seems a litte bit exaggerated to me, sure they added some features:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/features.mspx

And it was some more stuff "under the hood", but it is not anywhere near enhancements like TimeMachine, CoreAnimation, a complete 64bit Operating System, Quicklook or the new Finder. I think you really underestimate the work they've put in Leopard.

If Apple had just updated Safari, the Firewall, added the sandboxing and threw in some security fixes, your comparison might be accurate...
 
reading some of these posts... i must be quite fortunate to not have many problems with leopard. for the most part it's pretty steady... wireless never drops (did quite a bit in Tiger), networking is great (i see computers on my network, thanks in part to Linksys)... idk; i am looking forward to this update though, here's hoping for today :)
 
Release it quickly

Release it quickly!!
Even with that fixes it is going to be always a small issue. 10.4 arrived until 10.4.11 with a lot of security updates.
So Apple what are you waiting for?
 
Please please pleeeeaaaaase let it fix mail - I am fed up of having to access my email through a browser interface.
 
airjuggernaut said:
You won't notice it if all you do is surf the internet.
If you use things like Skype, you will constantly loose connections, and you will notice it quite frequently.
Click to expand...

Can't confirm that. I've luckily never experienced any issues with any Wifi network.
I do, however, have serious issues with waking my Macbook from sleep mode. So, I, too, am waiting almost impatiently for this update to be released, hoping it will dissolve the pain.
 
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