or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › OS X 10.8.4 release looms as Apple closes seed project
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

OS X 10.8.4 release looms as Apple closes seed project

post #1 of 40
Thread Starter 
Apple on Friday sent notice to developers that it will be closing the OS X Software Update 10.8.4 seed project, suggesting a final version of the maintenance update is close to release.

Seed


People who have seen the emailed notice believe OS X 10.8.4 could see public release in the near future, possibly at Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference coming up on June 10.

Along with thanking participants who contributed to the testing, Apple noted the discussion board and Project Area dedicated to the seeding initiative will be shut down following scheduled infrastructure maintenance this weekend. No information was given regarding a public release date.

Though Apple has yet to dole out a Gold Master of 10.8.4, signaling an imminent release of the software update, the company most recently seeded the eighth beta version of the software last week.

While the maintenance update is not expected to have many new features, a beta issued in April revealed code pointing to support for the 802.11ac wireless protocol, hinting that future Macs could soon employ the speedy Wi-Fi tech. Last week, pictures of a reported Broadcom BCM94360CD PCI-E mini custom combo WLAN+Bluetooth card made the rounds, with some speculating that the part could be used in an as-yet-unannounced Mac.

Apple has announced that it will show off next-generation versions of OS X and iOS at WWDC 2013, but many are anticipating new hardware like a refreshed MacBook lineup featuring Intel's latest Haswell processors.
post #2 of 40
I'm still wishing for full multi-monitor support. It's not there in 10.8

The fact that when you take an application to full screen it renders your other two monitors as useless as paperweights has behooved me. I never thought APPL would do something like that, but I'm reminded every time I want to use something in full-screen mode. It's been elven more frustrating that its still an issue after multiple request and several lengthy threads discussing the issue for almost two years (approximating).

Crossing my fingers for 10.9!
post #3 of 40
Shutting down communication channels and rumour sources in the lead up to WWDC?
post #4 of 40
Here's hoping it will finally support using over 64GB of RAM. Needs to catch up with Windows (and Linux) in that regard.
post #5 of 40
Originally Posted by TeaEarleGreyHot View Post
Here's hoping it will finally support using over 64GB of RAM. Needs to catch up with Windows (and Linux) in that regard.

 

OS X supports 96GB of RAM. 

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #6 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

OS X supports 96GB of RAM. 

I thought they were compatible up to 128?

post #7 of 40
I hope they add 30bit color support soon. It's a shame all the hardware is there but the OS won't allow it yet. If there was no iPhone and no iPad, we would have features like this already implemented. Too sad.
post #8 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecs View Post

I hope they add 30bit color support soon. It's a shame all the hardware is there but the OS won't allow it yet. If there was no iPhone and no iPad, we would have features like this already implemented. Too sad.

 

Uh, that's quite an assumption. There's not a shred of evidence that OSX would have 30bit support if the iPad/iPhone didn't exist, yet you state this as a fact. They're mutually exclusive. It's not like Apple has stopped development of OSX or Macs. They're still the best computers on the planet. Also, it's not "too sad" that Apple developed these products that hundreds of millions of people use and love and that changed entire industries- even if it was at the expense of a niche feature like 30bit color which a handful of people might benefit from- which it wasn't. 

post #9 of 40
Best on the planet? Really?...

Depends on what criteria you're measuring them against. If you're using that statement as an emotional standpoint then that's fine, but you're also doing so while calling someone out on a fact. You can't really mix the two. Well, you can, but don't expect to be taken seriously.

I like them too, but let us be at least a bit realistic here.

Tallest, are you no longer a moderator? No reason for asking other than I'm unfamiliar withy the new layout and it's not obviously stated under your name any longer.
Edited by Vadania - 5/31/13 at 7:03pm
post #10 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

OS X supports 96GB of RAM. 

If we're talking about a true 64-bit OS then it's 16.7TB. This is what Apple stated back when they announced Leopard or Snow Leopard or something. What the Mac Pro HW can actually support I guess its depends on some factors. i doubt the HW would limit it to the 64GiB that can currently be built but I also doubt the Mac Pro HW would have an upper limit of 96GB or 128GB. I'd think it would all depend on what the appropriate RAM modules that are available that would place a limit on the maximum RAM.
Edited by SolipsismX - 5/31/13 at 5:46pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #11 of 40
edit: As Vadania states (below) It looks like the upper limit is 96GiB because of the bus. 48GiB per riser for the dual-CPU Mac Pros. But why 48 and not 64? It's still triple-channel RAM, right? So that's 16GiB per channel. So based on reasonable expectations for the next Mac Pro what do people expect? 32GB per channel on each riser for a total of 192GiB?
Edited by SolipsismX - 6/1/13 at 8:56am

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #12 of 40
It actually comes down to the Address Bus, which is limited to 96GB at the moment. I have 128GB and can only utilize 96GB. The computer actually shows the full 128GB, but it can not actually use it all. That's based on third party software system monitors though.

I'm pretty sure I have all of the firmware updates...

This isn't a limitation in APPL's software. It's a limitation in the Intel board currently utilized in the Mac Pro. This is one reason why we're all waiting for a Pro update. There's many other reasons.

The Mac Pro is falling extensively behind, and I must say that if it doesn't get updated soon I will have IT provide an alternative. I'll still use my iMac at home though...
Edited by Vadania - 5/31/13 at 5:44pm
post #13 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania View Post

It actually comes down to the Address Bus, which is limited to 96GB at the moment. I have 128GB and can only utilize 96GB. The computer actually shows the full 128GB, but it can not actually use it all. That's based on third party software system monitors though.

I'm pretty sure I have all of the firmware updates...

Yeah, I don't see any software update making that happen. I suppose it's possible that it's been artificially limited in the firmware for some reason but that seems highly unlikely to me. 48GiB per riser, which means the single-chip Mac Pros with a single riser only support 48GiB (Actual) and 32GiB (Apple).

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #14 of 40
Sol, I love that beautiful brain of yours!

Yea, right now were stuck with 96GB unless someone finds a way to hack hardware.

Out for a night on the town! See you boys later!

Now if any of you have an idea on how to get rid of dads "lackey", I'd be much obliged! 1smile.gif

I don't know how, but he's smarter than I am...

Actually, I have the 8 core Xeon which has a 40-bit address bus (each core has bus addressing). If you use your math it should support up to 1 terabyte of memory. However using the more stringent calculations it should even support up to 144GB of ram. Unfortunately at the moment we're stuck at 96. That's why I mentioned the firmware. Please keep in mind that I "guesstimated" my math.
Edited by Vadania - 5/31/13 at 6:41pm
post #15 of 40
Originally Posted by Feynman View Post
I thought they were compatible up to 128?

 

They are, physically, but OS X cannot use it. 64-bit Windows 7/8 and 64-bit Linux can use 128 (that's why OWC DOES sell a 128GB set), but OS X can only address 96GB of it.

 

I seem to remember reading the XServe can handle even more than that, but I can't find it… Not that it matters; people don't have XServes anymore.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #16 of 40
Something tells me Tallest hid my posts... Because WOW! That was a lot of info lost.

OSX supports more than you can install. The problem is the hardware.
Edited by Vadania - 5/31/13 at 7:16pm
post #17 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Not that it matters; people don't have XServes anymore.

I was in a hosted data center a couple months ago with an entire rack dedicated to Xserves. I think I mentioned this and that they said they had to reset the servers about once a month. Note that they max OS is Mac OS X Server 10.5.6 for the *newest* Xserves

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #18 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania View Post

Best on the planet? Really?...

Depends on what criteria you're measuring them against. If you're using that statement as an emotional standpoint then that's fine, but you're also doing so while calling someone out on a fact. You can't really mix the two. Well, you can, but don't expect to be taken seriously.

I like them too, but let us be at least a bit realistic here.
 


Is that really such a far-fetched statement? Apple's Mac line is consistently rated best in class, in pretty much every aspect, by the vast majority of tech blogs, and more importantly, customer satisfaction for these products  is off the charts compared to other companies. If you average out reviews, overall the Macbook Air is easily the best ultrabook, the Macbook Pro the best laptop in its class, and the iMac the best all in one. They tend to always be recommended at the top of the list. This isn't my opinion, its that of countless others. So please, since you believe my statement is so ridiculous, point me out to computers from other companies that exceed Apple's metrics. Yet, you'd prefer to ignore these metrics and call me out as making an "emotional" statement. 

post #19 of 40
Still making an emotional statement.

Ratings, tech blogs, customer satisfaction, reviews, recommendations, opinions. Let me know if I haven't listed a "personal" if not "emotional" metric yet.

You didn't read my entire post.

If you really think APPL's computers are literally the "best on the planet" beyond a social or psychological standpoint then you yourself haven't put much thought into it. I'm sorry, but I can not offer links.

I, personally, have seen some very overpowered computers. Including those at C.E.R.N. I can guarantee that Apple's computers are not the "best on the planet".

However from a social point of view, I agree with you. I also use many of their computers.

You're spearing the wrong fish my friend... This fish bites back! LOL! 1smile.gif

Oh, and father dearest schools me every day on what's emotional and what's not.
Edited by Vadania - 6/1/13 at 12:23am
post #20 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

 

Uh, that's quite an assumption. There's not a shred of evidence that OSX would have 30bit support if the iPad/iPhone didn't exist, yet you state this as a fact. They're mutually exclusive. It's not like Apple has stopped development of OSX or Macs. They're still the best computers on the planet. Also, it's not "too sad" that Apple developed these products that hundreds of millions of people use and love and that changed entire industries- even if it was at the expense of a niche feature like 30bit color which a handful of people might benefit from- which it wasn't. 

 

Linux has full support for 30 bit color. Windows also supports it (disabling aero, because of how messy Windows is, but anyway supports it). The NVIDIA document describing how 30bit color is supported on Linux and Windows dates from 2009 (2009!!!). And Apple has put most of their engineering effort on iPhone and iPad all this time. If, as you claim, the iOS engineering effort has nothing to do with the lack of 30bit color support on the Mac, then we must conclude Apple no longer has good engineers in the imaging area.

 

But, don't worry, 30bit color is a niche feature for only medical imaging, professional photographers, and cinema producers, and we know they've moved to Windows and Linux, so you're right, don't worry because the Mac isn't targeted at professional photography.

 

[\sarcasm] Why would you want niche professional features on the Mac? What a nonsense! [\sarcasm]

post #21 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania View Post

I'm still wishing for full multi-monitor support. It's not there in 10.8

"Upgrade" to 10.6. That OS has multi-monitor support.

post #22 of 40

Well, I certainly hope, no, demand that Apple fix the known, pandemic, bug that everyone has to deal with but Apple has been ignoring for years. You know, the bug I obsess over yet have trouble finding others with the same bug but I know everybody has this bug because I do. If you do a Google search on this bug you get 10,356,427 hits and the Apple Discussion forums has a thread with 368 views so Apple is obviously covering it up. "Don't they test this stuff?®" "Apple's quality has  been sliding since Steve died.™"

 

YOU KNOW, THAT BUG!

post #23 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecs View Post



[sarcasm] Why would you want niche professional features on the Mac? What a nonsense! [\sarcasm]

Fixed that for you ... 1smile.gif
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #24 of 40
Quote:

Originally Posted by ecs View Post

 

But, don't worry, 30bit color is a niche feature for only medical imaging, professional photographers, and cinema producers, and we know they've moved to Windows and Linux, so you're right, don't worry because the Mac isn't targeted at professional photography.

 

I know you are trying to be snarky but you may have hit the nail on the head. Apple has de-emphasized the Mac for number of years now. Jobs admitted years ago that the PC wars were over and Windows won and Apple's primary business is mobile now. What we don't need from those who are upset with certain decisions and directions Apple has chosen are more "Apple is Doomed™" predictions. Because they are not.

post #25 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania View Post

I'm still wishing for full multi-monitor support. It's not there in 10.8

The fact that when you take an application to full screen it renders your other two monitors as useless as paperweights has behooved me. I never thought APPL would do something like that, but I'm reminded every time I want to use something in full-screen mode. It's been elven more frustrating that its still an issue after multiple request and several lengthy threads discussing the issue for almost two years (approximating).

Crossing my fingers for 10.9!


iMacs and laptops only have one screen.

post #26 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conrail View Post


iMacs and laptops only have one screen.

Those are built in display, but not the maximum number of displays they can support as evidenced by their video out ports.

What he says is why I haven't really considered an additional display at this point. I would love to use fullscreen apps on one or more monitors but if that disabled those other monitors then what's the point of that feature?

I'd think the fact that Apple only allows the Menu Bar on one display would make Fullscreen apps on the other monitors ideal but that has not been the case since this feature was introduced.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #27 of 40
Meanwhile Mac Rumors actually has a Mac Pro related thread as relating to WWDC ... OMG ... come on AI, you can do it!
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #28 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania View Post

Still making an emotional statement.

Ratings, tech blogs, customer satisfaction, reviews, recommendations, opinions. Let me know if I haven't listed a "personal" if not "emotional" metric yet.

You didn't read my entire post.

If you really think APPL's computers are literally the "best on the planet" beyond a social or psychological standpoint then you yourself haven't put much thought into it. I'm sorry, but I can not offer links.

I, personally, have seen some very overpowered computers. Including those at C.E.R.N. I can guarantee that Apple's computers are not the "best on the planet".

However from a social point of view, I agree with you. I also use many of their computers.

You're spearing the wrong fish my friend... This fish bites back! LOL! 1smile.gif

Oh, and father dearest schools me every day on what's emotional and what's not.

So, by your flawed logic:

 

A tunned 800hp Fiat Punt is a better car than, for example the 750hp Pagani Huyara.

 

Sorry, no.

post #29 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

Well, I certainly hope, no, demand that Apple fix the known, pandemic, bug that everyone has to deal with but Apple has been ignoring for years. You know, the bug I obsess over yet have trouble finding others with the same bug but I know everybody has this bug because I do. If you do a Google search on this bug you get 10,356,427 hits and the Apple Discussion forums has a thread with 368 views so Apple is obviously covering it up. "Don't they test this stuff?®" "Apple's quality has  been sliding since Steve died.™"

 

YOU KNOW, THAT BUG!

Don't be obtuse, son. :)

 

10.8 is by far the best OS on the market, but that's no excuse for some stupid bugs that are everywhere and visible. Like taking 30s for my Macbook Air to shut down, as well as rMBPs, while they boot in 5s or so.

 

It's all about those processes that have to be forced to close. Everyone knows it, yet they are still there.

 

Other problem is related to those users that vomit things like "Why do you shut it down?". I payed hard earned money for this Machine, these bugs that everyone sees should disappear in one update. There's no excuse. They must find a way to steal the best software engineers and integrate them well on OS X team.

 

They are Apple, the number one, all the resources. There's no excuse. Period.

 

But... Yes, they still produce (and that won't change...) the best computers and devices by a large margin.

post #30 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania View Post

Still making an emotional statement.

Ratings, tech blogs, customer satisfaction, reviews, recommendations, opinions. Let me know if I haven't listed a "personal" if not "emotional" metric yet.

You didn't read my entire post.

If you really think APPL's computers are literally the "best on the planet" beyond a social or psychological standpoint then you yourself haven't put much thought into it. I'm sorry, but I can not offer links.

I, personally, have seen some very overpowered computers. Including those at C.E.R.N. I can guarantee that Apple's computers are not the "best on the planet".

However from a social point of view, I agree with you. I also use many of their computers.

You're spearing the wrong fish my friend... This fish bites back! LOL! 1smile.gif

Oh, and father dearest schools me every day on what's emotional and what's not.

Best is a highly subjective superlative. You see this used in ads because all it needs to be true is for someone anyone to say it's the best. It's when you get into hard number that things need to be more verifiable and repeatable. Does being more powerful make it better for using?

I have an extended family of techtards™ that have all but given up on their more powerful Macs for the iPad as their primary machine so to them the best machine is the one they 1) can use most effectively, and 2) most enjoy using. From my experience they use their systems much more now and I have to support them less than I did when their primary machine was their Mac; although I do hope we see iOS screensharing demoed in 9 days to make it easier to support them when issues and questions do arise.


Four out of five engineers approve this message.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #31 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by heffeque View Post

"Upgrade" to 10.6. That OS has multi-monitor support.

 

You know that you can't just upgrade a new computer to an old OS, right?

AppleInsider = Apple-in-cider. It's a joke!

I've used macs since 1985 when I typed up my first research paper. Never used anything else never wanted to.
Reply
AppleInsider = Apple-in-cider. It's a joke!

I've used macs since 1985 when I typed up my first research paper. Never used anything else never wanted to.
Reply
post #32 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

They are, physically, but OS X cannot use it. 64-bit Windows 7/8 and 64-bit Linux can use 128 (that's why OWC DOES sell a 128GB set), but OS X can only address 96GB of it.

 

I seem to remember reading the XServe can handle even more than that, but I can't find it… Not that it matters; people don't have XServes anymore.

 

Ask Intel. The limits to how much memory the Mac Pro can support is on them, not Apple.

post #33 of 40
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post
Ask Intel. The limits to how much memory the Mac Pro can support is on them, not Apple.

 

Why can Windows booted on a Mac Pro support more than OS X, then?

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #34 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by heffeque View Post

"Upgrade" to 10.6. That OS has multi-monitor support.

Yes Heffe, it does. However something you apparently failed to notice, since you haven't upgraded beyond 10.6, is that there currently is no support for a "full screen" multi-monitor implementation. It gets even less bearable when you are "screen sharing" from two other computers and if you decide to use even just one of them in "full, screen" mode you actually lose the other two computers! Really!?

I do advise that you should upgrade beyond 10.6. You may like some of the new implementations....
post #35 of 40
Windows does not Tallest. It still shows the memory as available, just like OSX. However with OSX it will just not use the additional memory. With Windows, in Bootcamp, it will Bluescreen and call up "Memory_Management" because Windows has written and tried to retrieve beyond what the hardware supports.

Unfortunately I've seen it too many times to be "just kidding".
post #36 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eluard View Post

You know that you can't just upgrade a new computer to an old OS, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vadania View Post

Yes Heffe, it does. However something you apparently failed to notice, since you haven't upgraded beyond 10.6, is that there currently is no support for a "full screen" multi-monitor implementation. It gets even less bearable when you are "screen sharing" from two other computers and if you decide to use even just one of them in "full, screen" mode you actually lose the other two computers! Really!?

I do advise that you should upgrade beyond 10.6. You may like some of the new implementations....

How is his comment not being understood. He's clearly aware that you can't upgrade backwards that there is no multi-monitor support for fullscreen apps in 10.7 or 10.8. That's what, at least to me, made his comment funny.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #37 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Why can Windows booted on a Mac Pro support more than OS X, then?

Sorry, I didn't notice you stated that you tried it on a Mac Pro. Sol and I were talking about the upper limits of the hardware. As far I I'm informed the Mac Pro can not support 128G ram. Which again is not limited to the opperating system, but it's again another hardware issue.

:Edit:
I'm sorry, I may have been rash. Please tell me how you tested 128G on the Mac Book Pro.

Edit:
(Earlier I thought you wrote Mac Book Pro). Oh, whatever! It only uses 96 whether any OS actually reports the correct amount or not. Including Linux.
Edited by Vadania - 6/3/13 at 11:20pm
post #38 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


How is his comment not being understood. He's clearly aware that you can't upgrade backwards that there is no multi-monitor support for fullscreen apps in 10.7 or 10.8. That's what, at least to me, made his comment funny.

Sorry Sol. I just opened up my email and it went to the last post. Usually I just delete my "AppleInsider" emails. I may have missed a lot in the conversation.

Not the best day I've had so please forgive me.
post #39 of 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins View Post

So, by your flawed logic:

A tunned 800hp Fiat Punt is a better car than, for example the 750hp Pagani Huyara.

Sorry, no.

Strangely, my "flawed logic" makes my living. I'm young and I'm already "by logic" set. Perhaps I'm just inherently flawed, and paid for my flaws.

I'm going to be honest. I don't know anything about cars. At least the cars you're used to seeing. I could show you some cars that would boggle your Huyara mind though. However, I just buy mine so I can drive it.

I understand that you're trying to make a joke towards me, but in the context it still doesn't relate and from what I understand about guys... They get emotional about cars. So you're emotional about both your computer and your car. As long as you, and yourself (two different personas) are happy! 1smile.gif
Edited by Vadania - 6/3/13 at 10:57pm
post #40 of 40
Originally Posted by Vadania View Post
Oh, whatever! It only uses 96 whether any OS actually reports the correct amount or not. Including Linux.


That's just wrong, though.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › OS X 10.8.4 release looms as Apple closes seed project