Would this explain a lot of beachballs post-original update on a new iMac? Just curious if this could be the cause (I'm not at home right now to test), or if I should keep digging for another reason...
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.
Security Update 2005-007 v1.1 Released
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
good save
im personally wondering how many apps this affected, seems like most standard apps wouldnt use 64, so this mustive been a very isolated situation in terms of apps wise. with all the G5s now, im glad they fixed it promptly, and for all you G5 users, did any of you accually notice this?shamino said:
This may be posted elsewhere, but for clarity it's for Tiger 10.4.2.nate13 said:
http://macupdate.com/info.php/id/8282
X
Yeah I agree. Where is that person who was ranting about people need not to worry about security updates? I'd like to see what he/she has to say now.
sonny said:
nate13 said:
I havn't noticed anything,
Everything was running smoothly yesterday. What should I have noticed?
Whatever, I'll download the fix and that should be that right?
autrefois
macrumors 65816
So the new numbering scheme is
year-001
year-002
etc.
Except when the previous update breaks 64-bit compatibility (or some other major flaw confirmed by Mathematica). Then the next number is
year-xxx v1.1
Why is it not version 2? Are they planning more versions of this update? Or better yet, why not just 2005-008?
But anyway it's good that Apple fixed this so quickly. It sounds like there were several other problems directly or indirectly caused by the update (which will hopefully be fixed by 2005-008 or 2005-007 v1.2 or whatever their numbering system is now), but it's pretty embarrassing for Apple to brag about 64-bit processing and then apparently not even take it into account in their testing.
EDIT: This was apparently post 32, which means it was already compatible with the original version of 2005-007.
year-001
year-002
etc.
Except when the previous update breaks 64-bit compatibility (or some other major flaw confirmed by Mathematica). Then the next number is
year-xxx v1.1
Why is it not version 2? Are they planning more versions of this update? Or better yet, why not just 2005-008?
But anyway it's good that Apple fixed this so quickly. It sounds like there were several other problems directly or indirectly caused by the update (which will hopefully be fixed by 2005-008 or 2005-007 v1.2 or whatever their numbering system is now), but it's pretty embarrassing for Apple to brag about 64-bit processing and then apparently not even take it into account in their testing.
EDIT: This was apparently post 32, which means it was already compatible with the original version of 2005-007.
They probably have lives. The speediness of news here suits me just fine.bwilfong said:
Oh, and the update gave me an error while downloading. I just tried it again and it seems to be working fine now.
autrefois
macrumors 65816
Stella said:
I understand your point and realize it's considered a minor revision (and that the numbering is not of major importance). I was just trying to point out the arbitrariness of the numbering system. It seemed like for once it had been logical by simply going up by one each time.
They also very well could have called it v1.01 instead of v1.1, especially since I doubt there will ever be a v1.2 or v.1.02. But maybe I speak too soon... I guess they wanted to differentiate the new update from the old without making it seem like they made a major mistake (which calling it v2 might have done).
I apparently got pulled into the trap, sorry. Numbering issues are discussed a lot on macrumors. At least I didn't bring up the whole .10 comes after .09 debate.
yg17 said:
Of course it will.
Saft, PithHelmet and any other Safari hacks break every time a new version of Safari or Webkit is released. At least they now check the version number has changed instead of just crashing like they used to.
You'd think by now people would have got into the hang of not installing updates until their hacks have been updated....
....or seen sense and not installed hacks.
SiliconAddict said:Tell me again about how Apple's wares are so much better then MS's. This is the kind of crap I expect from a MS patch. And please guys. Don't act like this is the first time this has happened. IMHO it feels like Apple is treating their user base like release candidate testers which is NOT in any way shape or form cool.
No you are correct. Apple security and point updates have been lousy for some time now. Apple acts like a band of teen hackers...just putting updates out there before testing them with even just common apps and perifs. Back in 10.3.7 Apple just left owners of certain ext FW drives hanging, waiting months before releasing a fix (thankfully Initio wasn't as lazy). I love Apple products, but there updates are shameful and almost in the same league as M$.
SiliconAddict said:Tell me again about how Apple's wares are so much better then MS's. This is the kind of crap I expect from a MS patch. And please guys. Don't act like this is the first time this has happened. IMHO it feels like Apple is treating their user base like release candidate testers which is NOT in any way shape or form cool.
Hey SiliconAddict, please explain to us how this oversight affected you. Millions upon millions of Mac users were not affected by this problem, only a relatively small percentage. Apple engineers are working day and night to bring us the best OS, but I guess they're not as perfect as you are.
That has to hurt. Mathematica is one of the OS X poster children, brought out for events like the G5 and x86 rollouts to show how wonderful everything is going to be. It's a good thing that 64 bit support in OS X is primitive enough that few bother with it.
FoxyKaye said:
1) is your computer awake at 3am to perform its nightly maintenance?
-or-
2) or do you manually run maintenance tasks using an app such as OnyX?
If you don't run the maintenance tasks periodically, the gears can get gummed up. It's highly recommended at least once a month.
1. Apple makes mistakes too, not just MS.SiliconAddict said:Tell me again about how Apple's wares are so much better then MS's. This is the kind of crap I expect from a MS patch. And please guys. Don't act like this is the first time this has happened. IMHO it feels like Apple is treating their user base like release candidate testers which is NOT in any way shape or form cool.
2. Therefore Apple makes just AS MANY mistakes that are just AS DAMAGING as MS does.
You lost me somewhere between 1 and 2
In any case, if my business or research depended on Mathematica, I would have been very put out yesterday.