My bad experiences with SL have been pretty limited, and less than I expected actually. Now that you mention it, iDVD did seem to take a long time the one time I have used it under SL. My biggest problem has been connected an external HDTV. Connecting via HDMI (using mini-DVI to HDMI adapter), doesn't doesn't work at all, and via VGA gets periodic poor quality. I call it a yellow tinge, although it could be blue and making things more yellow when mixed. Apparently this is a known bug that will hopefully be fixed in the next update.
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.
Snow leopard..... I wish I hadn't
- Thread starter RubbishBBspeed
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Notice that I didn't call your opinion ridiculous.
It seems to me you are pulling red herrings across the path rather than offering anything convincing. Perhaps you'd like to actually tell me what's really going on since I'm so ignorant rather than attacking me. I don't think this conversation is worth my time. Good day!
Notice how I offered a reasonable argument for my opinion. While you straddled yours with incorrect knowledge of the subject.
I simply asked for clarification of your claims. I am not required to provide a knockdown argument for clean installs, you are since you are the one that has stated a user should do it.
I have offered you the most convincing evidence: Apple prefers the upgrade method as evidenced by the changing of the install options from Leopard to Snow Leopard.
Leopard offered:
First time Installation, if no OS was present
Upgrade Mac OS X
Archive and Install (with the option to preserve users and network settings
Erase and Install
Snow Leopard offers:
Upgrade Install (Hybrid Archive and Install)
Clean Install only if the user manually erases the disk via Disk Utility
This makes it clear which Apple wants you to use. Yet, you are saying the opposite should be required if the user does not want problems.
Who is the user supposed to trust? If you say that your method is best, you are admitting that Apple has failed in providing an Upgrade Installation that will ensure a fully operational computer. Are you willing to commit to that conclusion?
Apple has the ability to quarantine things on install or Migration: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3258
EDIT: Also, do not invoke logical fallacies like red herring without pointing out the fallacy.
mac2x or Q-chan, if either of you can prove anything about the supposed library conflicts then you will have convinced me that Apple can't write an installer for OS X and Migration Assistant is just as bad.
Frankly I have my faith in Apple.
Frankly I have my faith in Apple.
Eidorian, I never said "Apple can't write an installer". Actually, does a marvelous job. I have seen many operating systems, as developer and as user, and I have never experienced an upgrade going that smooth as my upgrade from Leopard to Snow Leopard.
HOWEVER, the transition Leopard -> Snow Leopard is not just an ordinary upgrade (and the smoothness let you forget this...). You are upgrading from a 32 bit operating system with some 64 bit capabilities (default: 32 bit) to a 64 bit operating system with 32 bit compatibility (default: 64 bit on capable hardware). Leave the kernel out of the picture... you really need a 64 bit kernel only if you have large *physical* memory.
The problem is not with the Apple applications, it is the 3rd-party stuff, which might not be built with the correct architecture settings.
Migration assistant is just a program, it can only inspect your old apps, libraries and settings so much. After I did the upgrade, I started to run into more and more difficulties with old applications and inabilities to build things ("required architecture not found in library"...). This was the point when I decided to clean-sweep and install from scratch, making sure all my 3rd-party apps and libs are compatible. It took me a day, but now I have a clean, agile system, and the only remaining 32 bit apps are Skype and Aquamacs, both apparently built correctly.
And regarding Safari... as I said before, whenever Safari crashed, the Java VM was indicated in the debugging console (in the context of the Java plugin). So maybe Safari isn't even guilty....
Like you, I have high faith in Apple...
Manfred
This is voodoo computer science. There is nothing unhealthy about supporting both 64-bit and 32-bit libraries, as Leopard did and Windows Vista+ does.
Snow Leopard is just buggy.
Exactly right. Fanbois are just trying to pin the blame for Apple's bugs on anybody and everybody else.calderone said:
I believe it is bugs. But if it is changes as you describe, then it is bad planning on Apple's part. They could have different library versions depending on which one the app was originally linked against. Real operating systems like FreeBSD and Solaris use this to provide decades of backward compatibility.mac2x said:
Against my better judgement, I'm back.
I did clarify them, by stating the problem is old libraries. Those kinds of things are fairly well known as being a point of failure for OS upgrades. Why should I go hunt down every blasted library and framework for some person on the internet? And I don't think I'm exactly alone in thinking that a clean install is the better way to go.
I like Apple's products a lot, but is what they declare as the "right" way to do it necessarily the Bible for every situation? Q-chan brings up an excellent point about 3rd party apps. That is a whole new kettle of fish (or can of worms depending on the way you look at it!) I'm sure things work great if you only have a few 3rd party apps. but if you're like me, you have quite a bit of 3rd party stuff, and that's the real point of failure with the upgrade process.
The quarantine is for incompatible apps themselves, based on the language of the support article. Does it remove the plists and libraries associated with those apps as well? If it does, there's the solution right there. But I rather think it doesn't.
And of course, I'm sure some people's SL troubles are related to bugs that will be taken care of in subsequent updates. It's so silly how people immediately accuse Apple of turning out garbage when the OS is so new! Leopard had teething troubles too, but they were fixed. SL will most likely follow suit. I do think it's interesting that many of the people I've talked to who are having no problems with SL did clean installs...
It was just a guess, but some things could very well have been tweaked and modified. I agree that it is bad planning, if that indeed is a culprit. And there certainly are bugs. It's a newly released OS, for cryin' out loud! Why the headlong rush to the gallows before they even have a chance to fix it?
No matter what operating system, the designer must decide what the primary (32 vs 64) architecture is. SL shifted to 64 bits. So why are you concluding "Snow Leopard is just buggy."? Every major revision of a complex software system (like an OS) has initial problems, Apple is not exempt from that. But what we discuss here is outside of their direct responsibility and mere a hidden curse of the otherwise very elegant multi-architecture binary/library concept. It requires extra attention and discipline from the developer, but if done right, it is way superior to the custom of architecture-segregated parallel bin and lib directories on other Unix and Linux systems.
Strange argument... MacOS X is Mach 3.0 plus BSD 4.4... isn't that real enough?
Against my better judgement, I'm back.
I did clarify them, by stating the problem is old libraries. Those kinds of things are fairly well known as being a point of failure for OS upgrades. Why should I go hunt down every blasted library and framework for some person on the internet? And I don't think I'm exactly alone in thinking that a clean install is the better way to go.
"Old Libraries" is not a clarification. What makes them old? What makes them incompatible? You began this by discussing 32-bit and 64-bit "Libraries" which is completely different than talking about Library folders. You have not clarified anything in this regard. And you began in a way that makes it unclear as to what you are referring to.
And of course you aren't alone in thinking that clean installs are the better way togo, I personally do clean installs as well. However, this is not the default option. Meaning that one should be able to expect that the OS itself will remain without problems if they take the default option when installing the OS.
I will explain why thinking that these "libraries" cause problems just by being on the machine is fallacious.
I like Apple's products a lot, but is what they declare as the "right" way to do it necessarily the Bible for every situation? Q-chan brings up an excellent point about 3rd party apps. That is a whole new kettle of fish (or can of worms depending on the way you look at it!) I'm sure things work great if you only have a few 3rd party apps. but if you're like me, you have quite a bit of 3rd party stuff, and that's the real point of failure with the upgrade process.
The quarantine is for incompatible apps themselves, based on the language of the support article. Does it remove the plists and libraries associated with those apps as well? If it does, there's the solution right there. But I rather think it doesn't.
And of course, I'm sure some people's SL troubles are related to bugs that will be taken care of in subsequent updates. It's so silly how people immediately accuse Apple of turning out garbage when the OS is so new! Leopard had teething troubles too, but they were fixed. SL will most likely follow suit. I do think it's interesting that many of the people I've talked to who are having no problems with SL did clean installs...
Is what they declare the right way to do it? Well, they made the OS. Even so, it isn't a question of right or wrong. It is a question about how an upgrade automatically means the user is at fault for their "crap" or "haxies," or as you say "old libraries."
3rd party applications existing on the system do not affect the functionality of the OS unless you are using them. The mere fact that they are extant on the system does not mean there will be a failure. Unless that thing plugs into the OS in some non-standard way, like Application Enhancer and other things listed on the Apple KB I linked. Or anything that makes changes to Apple Frameworks.
It doesn't need to remove the plists and "libraries" because they are irrelevant. If you can't run the Application those plists and "libraries" have no bearing on the machine. If you are suggesting that a plist is doing anything by just being there, then you are not clear on what you are talking about.
And how is it interesting that those who did clean installs have no problems? This is obvious. No one is saying a clean install is not good or preferred. It is the unjustified blaming of the user for problems with Snow Leopard. Problems that exist independent of these "old libraries." And it is unrealistic to expect every user to do a clean install when Apple's installer is presenting you with the upgrade option and that option only.
For example. 802.1X authentication when waking from sleep. That is a problem I have documented on a clean installation. I also submitted the bug to Apple. This is a problem that exists without these irrelevant "old libraries" you keep referring to.
For the record, based on your definition of "old libraries, included would be: The user's address book, recent servers, bookmarks, fonts, favorite servers, mailboxes, keychain and much more critical user data. How can you justify this?
You should have stuck with your better judgement, you don't understand how OS X works. If you want to continue, please clarify: What are "old libraries?"
What makes them old?
If an "old library" is not invoked how do you explain bugs in Snow Leopard?
This is not correct. 64-bit kernel defaults only on Early 2008 Mac Pro's and Xserve's.
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3770
Meaning a large portion, and dare I say the majority of Macintoshes in use, do not boot into a 64-bit kernel by default. This is done to make sure that the majority of user software is able to run when you upgrade to Snow Leopard.
The error you received sound more like a Development error. "required architecture not found in library" Would mind being more specific about this error.
Furthermore, even if things have changed in Snow Leopard to the point where a current application is completely incompatible. One needs to only update that Application. But again, this has no bearing on the functionality of the OS itself if you are not running the incompatible Application or unless that Application is changing things about the OS, like Application Enhancer.
I think we are going in circles here. You said I'm wrong, but actually proving all my points...
The "architecture not in library" error shows up when you try to build an (impossible) mixed architecture application. (You can have multiple architectures in a Universal binary, but each contained architecture variant can only be built out of components for that architecture.)
I think we are going in circles here. You said I'm wrong, but actually proving all my points...
The "architecture not in library" error shows up when you try to build an (impossible) mixed architecture application. (You can have multiple architectures in a Universal binary, but each contained architecture variant can only be built out of components for that architecture.)
And what points of yours have I proved? You stated that all Macs default to a 64-bit kernel under Snow Leopard. This was incorrect, as pointed out by the Apple KB I linked. The claim has been that the mere presence of these applications causes problems which is false. Admittedly, we were not in discussion, I should have simply pointed out your incorrect statement.
Your error is a development problem and has nothing to do with this thread.
I am going to bow out of this thread. I have no interest in discussing this topic with people who don't know what they are talking about. This is not directed toward you Q-chan, I haven't been directly discussing with you.
Calderone, you're grasping at straws here...are you now denying that bundles of applications contain libraries that provide services to the application? Denying the existence of libraries that provide system services? And libraries for older versions of apps have the potential mess up newer versions if they aren't removed. Perhaps it's the fact the OS X refers to the directories that contain them "frameworks", that has you confused?
It should be as plain as the nose on your face — since this is a computer forum after all — that "libraries" does not refer to the user's personal data...
I'm glad we agree as to the merits of erasing and installing, though.
It should be as plain as the nose on your face — since this is a computer forum after all — that "libraries" does not refer to the user's personal data...
I'm glad we agree as to the merits of erasing and installing, though.
May I kindly ask you to read carefully: I always excluded the Kernel from discussion, since the kernel has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
I am concluding it is buggy, because of the obvious bugs, and the correction list given for fixes so far in 10.6.2. Why is everyone else concluding it is 3rd party developers fault?
FreeBSD 5.0 actually. But that has no effect on the OS X libraries, or whether Apple chooses to use the established methods of providing backwards compatibility. Which again, I submit there are NO compatibility problems. Rather, Snow Leopard is just buggy.
I merely denied what you were trying to point out. First it was libraries, then it was the Library Folders. Now it is Frameworks.
I only denied the poor description you offered as to what you were talking about.
This doesn't make any sense. If an application has a support library it is using it's own support library or an Apple support library. In no way does it conflict with the support libraries being used by other Applications. These things exist independant of one another. There is no "messing up" newer versions. To be frank, what you are saying is incoherent.
I am not confused in anyway. If you are truly talking about the frameworks folder these again, they are application dependent. Take a look for yourself. If something is modifying an Apple framework, then there is no question that there will be problems. But there are only a few things that do this and they are branded as "haxies." However, a migration will not bring Apple frameworks from Leopard into Snow Leopard. This would not make any sense.
Sure it will bring local frameworks, but those do not cause problems simply by being there. They are used by that Application.
Again, you have not been consistent at all in what you are talking about. First it was "libraries" then the library folder and now Frameworks. You were talking about the Library folder before, hence my mention of user data.
It should be as plain as the nose on your face — since this is a computer forum after all — that "libraries" does not refer to the user's personal data...
Again you were not clear as to what you were talking about. And now that it is clear, what you are saying is incoherent. You yourself said "Library folder," which includes user data. Only now have you used the properly terminology so that we can be clear on what you are talking about.
You said it yourself, and now that I am clear as to what you are saying, I have explained why you don't know what you are talking about.
I'm glad we agree as to the merits of erasing and installing, though.
You should work toward using correct terminology. What you are saying does not make sense. Only now have you made it clear what you are speaking about, and it doesn't make any sense. End of story. You have made no ground in suggesting that there will be "incompatible libraries" that cause problems. Those problems would be in the Applications themselves, hence they would not work.
Here is what you said:
What is defaulting to 64-bit in capable hardware?
A lil strange really.. i have the same laptop, speed, ram and type and mine is fine.. looking at activity monitor just now, i notice that flash is using nearly a gig of RAM, but im putting that down to adobe- man i hope they sort that out pronto style! my laptop seems to last longer on a charge, boots up quicker, more HD space, has some slight niggles where there is a beachball, mainly in itunes im finding, when syncing my iphone- not so sure why that is, but it will not doubt be patched soon enough..
At the end of the day, no OS is perfect on release. I can just recommend you go through your preference panes n check that nothing suspicious is going on, also check your activity monitor for what apps are using up all your memory..
PTP
Quit arguing. SL has worked for me, my dad, and my not-so-technophile mom. Saying you get a beach ball doesn't mean squat. What application is in the foreground at that time? Safari has never crashed for me since I started using Macs back in '05 or so. Not once. iDVD being slow? Which version? iDVD '09 has worked perfectly for me, actually 20-30% faster.
So OP, provide more details. Do you want to whine or get answers to your problems? So far, you've been whining.
So OP, provide more details. Do you want to whine or get answers to your problems? So far, you've been whining.
Where are the libraries in the Library folder? Again, you aren't using the proper terminology. Where in the OS are frameworks referred to as Libraries? They aren't. Don't expect me to guess what you are talking about, but again this only further shows that you don't know what you are saying.
And now that you have finally pinpointed what you are discussing I have shown you that what you are saying is false. There is no conflict between old and new frameworks in regards to Apple frameworks. If you are installing Snow Leopard you are getting Snow Leopard libraries.
Now, if an Application framework is not compatible, then that application needs to be updated. But that framework does not cause problems just by existing. It can if it is called by the Application it is made for, but this is like anything else. Point updates can cause problems for Applications.
If what you are trying to say is: Update your software, well thank you captain obvious. If you are trying to suggest that OS framework problems are caused by "old" frameworks from a migration, then you are not clear on what you are talking and should remove yourself from the discussion.
From the horse's mouth.
You've done nothing but say I'm wrong, but you offer no insight for me. Let's see some why's and wherefore's. If I'm wrong, I would gladly stand corrected if shown some solid evidence to the contrary.
Continuing to put you fingers in your ears while shouting things like YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT merely angers people...and based on your posting history, this ain't the first time either. Either put your money where your mouth is and disabuse my wrong notions, or shut up.
You've done nothing but say I'm wrong, but you offer no insight for me. Let's see some why's and wherefore's. If I'm wrong, I would gladly stand corrected if shown some solid evidence to the contrary.
Continuing to put you fingers in your ears while shouting things like YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT merely angers people...and based on your posting history, this ain't the first time either. Either put your money where your mouth is and disabuse my wrong notions, or shut up.
From the horse's mouth.
You've done nothing but say I'm wrong, but you offer no insight for me. Let's see some why's and wherefore's. If I'm wrong, I would gladly stand corrected if shown some solid evidence to the contrary.
Continuing to put you fingers in your ears while shouting things like YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT merely angers people...and based on your posting history, this ain't the first time either. Either put your money where your mouth is and disabuse my wrong notions, or shut up.
Your link does nothing to say I am incorrect. It merely explains what Frameworks are. All you have made a case for is incompatible software, but not your mythical problem between old and new frameworks.
If Apple changes a framework and that Application hasn't been updated to use it, it is out of date. But if an Application is brought over in a migration, an old Apple framework from Leopard is not brought over. Only Local frameworks and user frameworks. And if those don't work, we again have nothing but outdated software.
These outdated frameworks do not impact the system with merely their existence.
I have explained to you why you are wrong. You decided not to post anything substantive.
Well, it does say right in the first line does it not? that the frameworks contain a dynamic shared library?
You have "shown" me absolutely nothing. If there is no conflict between frameworks, why is that the case? SHOW me WHY I'm wrong, and I'll believe you.
You have "shown" me absolutely nothing. If there is no conflict between frameworks, why is that the case? SHOW me WHY I'm wrong, and I'll believe you.
It's a long and convoluted pass the blame game. First it was the user and their "haxies". Then it was the installer and incompatible Libraries in the user space and system levels. The default installer when upgrading is effectively an Archive and Install anyways. Otherwise it's a clean installation after you've managed to erase the disk. Now we're on frameworks.
Like you've said Snow Leopard is buggy.
It is talking about Apple Frameworks which I have already mentioned and those are obviously shared. Let me break it down for you.
1. Application X uses the Cocoa Framework. Located in /System/Library/Frameworks
2. User updates to Snow Leopard
3. Apple has changed the Cocoa Framework
4. User migrates their information from Leopard
5. Application X is not compatible with the new Cocoa Framework.
6. Application X needs to be updated.
That is all. You have only made a case for outdated software. Not conflicting new and old libraries. Migration is not putting a copy of the old framework anywhere, it ignores it because this is Snow Leopard and Snow Leopard has it's own versions of the frameworks.
Why are you not understanding this? But wait, you are talking about Application frameworks in /Library and ~/Library. It is possible for there to be a shared framework, maybe Panic Software has a shared framework for their applications. But if those do not work in Snow Leopard it is because they need to be rewritten. We again only have outdated software.
Your original argument was that there is a conflict between old and new libraries, the doc you linked talks about Apple Frameworks. There will be no conflict here.
You were original talking about application frameworks, in which case, the OS is not calling for 3rd party frameworks. It has no use for them. The existence of these frameworks is only a problem if you are trying to run that Application and it's framework is incompatible with Snow Leopard. But even here, this will likely not cause the OS problems. I say likely because an application that is too out of date can cause problems, I have experienced them.
Regardless, the problem you were originally suggesting doesn't exist. There will be no problems between old and new Apple frameworks that cause the OS problems. And the existence of 3rd party frameworks are not a problem unless that application is run, but again all we have here is out of date software and that is an obvious problem.
In addition, you have not given me any case of conflicting frameworks that happen at the OS level, not an application level.
Thank you; I was confused then. Makes more sense to me now. Apologies for the contretemps.
However, one more question: does the Migration process truly leave out all the old frameworks when it moves your data and preferences and applications (if you are moving any)? I still think that having that old data *could* cause confusion if it gets brought into the new OS; I've heard that from other computer people. But if it is being left out, then it's a non-issue.
[edit] I guess a better way to put that is does SL know to ignore old frameworks?