or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Fixes continue to mount in Mac OS X 10.4.9 seeds
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fixes continue to mount in Mac OS X 10.4.9 seeds

post #1 of 55
Thread Starter 
A soon-to-be-released update to Apple's Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger operating system will deliver nearly 100 individual bug fixes and code corrections when it's offered for public consumption a bit later this month.

Private test distributions of the software update continued over the weekend for a fourth consecutive week, bearing Mac OS X 10.4.9 builds 8P125 (PowerPC) and 8P2125 (Intel). The bare-bones software updaters weighed in at 71.9 MB and 165.7 MB, respectively.

Despite a flurry of closely-strung builds in January, which sometimes signals an imminent release, those familiar with the latest seeds say Apple engineers continue to add to a mounting list bug fixes now totaling 95.

In particular, the latest builds are said to include at least eight new fixes over builds 8P122 and 8P2122, which made their way to developers last week. Those fixes reportedly target OpenGL, Sync Services, ImageIO, iSync, and memory leaks in graphics driver code.

Again, Apple asked that developers focus their testing efforts around key system components such as Audio, Bluetooth, bonjour, Disk Images, FireWire, Fonts, Graphics, iCal, iChat Video Conferencing, iSync, Rosetta, USB and .Mac Connectivity.

Mac OS X 10.4.9 is due for release sometime this month.
post #2 of 55
Nice...

I like system updates. I hope this one, being the last one on tiger will be good and problem free. It would be nice if it made tiger's performance a bit better also. This also means that Leopard is coming!
post #3 of 55
Well, we assume this is the last one. 10.4.10 is a possibility, given as much as another 4.5 months before Leopard.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #4 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickaha View Post

Well, we assume this is the last one. 10.4.10 is a possibility, given as much as another 4.5 months before Leopard.

I agree. I expect a 10.4.10 to arrive just before or after the Leopard release to ensure compatibility between the two for people staying on Tiger for a while and people already upgraded to Leopard.

iPhone compatibility could be another reason. The iPhone is scheduled to be released months after 10.4.9. Leopard will probably have iPhone support out-of-the-box, Tiger will need 10.4.10 for that. Expect the iPhone to work with at least 10.4, 10.5, XP and Vista if Apple wants to sell more than just a few.
post #5 of 55
Ayup, good point. And maybe... *maybe* it'll finally put to rest the old wives tale that the version after X.Y.9 is X.(Y+1).0. For that reason alone, I hope they do release it.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #6 of 55
I certainly hope that one of the bug fixes will address the problem many (not all) of us are having with iDVD. To take 10 hours just to encode the audio for a 1-hour DVD on a Quad G5 just isn't right, and this bug has been around for a long long time. C'mon Apple, gemme back my iDVD.
post #7 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wings View Post

I certainly hope that one of the bug fixes will address the problem many (not all) of us are having with iDVD. To take 10 hours just to encode the audio for a 1-hour DVD on a Quad G5 just isn't right, and this bug has been around for a long long time. C'mon Apple, gemme back my iDVD.

Ya, I thought encoding with a core 2 duo would be quick....was i ever wrong.
Get a matte screen cover and quit whining...glossy displays rock.
Reply
Get a matte screen cover and quit whining...glossy displays rock.
Reply
post #8 of 55
Any VPN fixes?
post #9 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wings View Post

I certainly hope that one of the bug fixes will address the problem many (not all) of us are having with iDVD. To take 10 hours just to encode the audio for a 1-hour DVD on a Quad G5 just isn't right, and this bug has been around for a long long time. C'mon Apple, gemme back my iDVD.

I think that would mean an update to Quicktime. It's supposedly a problem with Compressor too.

I don't think any of Apple's current encoders can max out more than two cores, some codecs barely max out one core, and as you suggest, are very inefficient. There are even some open source encoders available that would max out a quad, handbrake can encode H.264 to VGA res in about real time, including audio. I don't understand why Apple hadn't bothered to update theirs months ago.
post #10 of 55
looking forward to what is most likely gonna be the last upgrade tiger can sink it's claws into. Pun intended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
post #11 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickaha View Post

Well, we assume this is the last one. 10.4.10 is a possibility, given as much as another 4.5 months before Leopard.

I seriously doubt there will be a 10.4.10. They will instead mask the updates as security patches.

The reason why is that the latest trend of going past .9 versions with .10 and up is confusing for end users, as it follows no known logical mathematical system. The "obvious" followup update to 10.4.9 would be either 10.5 or 10.4.9.1.

We had people replacing their current 1.7.13 Mozilla installations with earlier versions of 1.7.x, thinking that it was the newest version due to the naming scheme. And these were smart people.

Additionally, Apple did not exceed .9 with any of the previous versions of OSX.
post #12 of 55
mainly because 10.3.9 was the only one use thus far.

Time will tell if they do or not.
post #13 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesG View Post

The reason why is that the latest trend of going past .9 versions with .10 and up is confusing for end users, as it follows no known logical mathematical system.

Because.

It's.

Not.

A.

Mathematical.

System.

FFS.

Quote:
We had people replacing their current 1.7.13 Mozilla installations with earlier versions of 1.7.x, thinking that it was the newest version due to the naming scheme. And these were smart people.

Obviously not.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #14 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesG View Post

I seriously doubt there will be a 10.4.10. They will instead mask the updates as security patches.

The reason why is that the latest trend of going past .9 versions with .10 and up is confusing for end users, as it follows no known logical mathematical system. The "obvious" followup update to 10.4.9 would be either 10.5 or 10.4.9.1.

Your statement would appear self-contradictory. I don't know of any mathematical system that has more than one decimal place in a number, so why are you suggesting adding yet another one? The number is based on a logical software versioning system, not a mathematical system.

The number system is much like like base-10 representations of IP addresses, but that don't necessarily carry or increment, but it allows up to three digits between decimals.

Quote:
We had people replacing their current 1.7.13 Mozilla installations with earlier versions of 1.7.x, thinking that it was the newest version due to the naming scheme. And these were smart people.

Why are your users allowed to install software? Security-wise, that's asking for trouble.

For OS X, I don't know if you can install an older version over a newer version.

Just let the software updater do its business. Software Updater doesn't make assumptions or mistakes like that.
post #15 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Why are your users allowed to install software? Security-wise, that's asking for trouble.

For OS X, I don't know if you can install an older version over a newer version.

Just let the software updater do its business. Software Updater doesn't make assumptions or mistakes like that.


The users in questions were techs, so yes they were allowed to install software and yes they were smart people. They just didn't know that 1.7.13 is newer than 1.7.8. It's apparent after the fact, but until that instance they had never seen a version above .9.

And yes, in OSX you can install older versions of non-Apple apps by simply replacing it. The only thing you see is a dialog asking if you want to replace the (older) version.

The point about Software Update is irrelevant, since it's not Apple software and it's not available in Software Update. Software Update only applies to Apple software.


James
post #16 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesG View Post

The users in questions were techs, so yes they were allowed to install software and yes they were smart people. They just didn't know that 1.7.13 is newer than 1.7.8. It's apparent after the fact, but until that instance they had never seen a version above .9.

I suppose they don't use much open source software.

Quote:
And yes, in OSX you can install older versions of non-Apple apps by simply replacing it. The only thing you see is a dialog asking if you want to replace the (older) version.

I know you can revert apps. What I meant is whether you can revert to older patch levels of OS X without excessive work.

Quote:
The point about Software Update is irrelevant, since it's not Apple software and it's not available in Software Update. Software Update only applies to Apple software.

It is relevant to this thread. I know it won't update third party apps, but that's the software that will update OS X. If Apple offered 10.4.10, then that's what software update will show and install for you if it is accepted. I don't know if the Mozilla software has an update checker, but Firefox does that automatically, as such, I just let it do its business. I don't see the point in manually managing updates like that.
post #17 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I don't see the point in manually managing updates like that.

I think you misunderstood my original post. I never stated or implied that we were doing OSX updates manually. Yes, we let Software Update do it's business.

It's just confusing for end users who are not used to how open source software sets versions. As I said, I would be very surprised if Apple releases a 10.4.10. Their trend is to hit .8 or .9, then shift focus to the next major point release.


James
post #18 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesG View Post

I think you misunderstood my original post. I never stated or implied that we were doing OSX updates manually. Yes, we let Software Update do it's business.

It's just confusing for end users who are not used to how open source software sets versions. As I said, I would be very surprised if Apple releases a 10.4.10. Their trend is to hit .8 or .9, then shift focus to the next major point release.


James

trend? isn't much of a trend there. They've ended with a different number each time, and its gotten higher each time. If they end with 10.4.9 it would be the first time the repeated ending with a .9, and the first time they hadn't gotten a higher number than previous.

If anything, the 'trend' will have them going to .10 at least
post #19 of 55
I don't believe I've ever heard of a mathematical system where a 9 is not followed by a 10.

But seriously, if Apple's history is anything to go by (extrapolating) then we should see a 10.4.11 or even 10.4.12. Given the timeframe that is not very likely so a final update is likely to be 10.4.10. It will be released as usual, just before or after the release of Leopard.
post #20 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morris View Post

I don't believe I've ever heard of a mathematical system where a 9 is not followed by a 10.

Hexadecimal?

Quote:
But seriously, if Apple's history is anything to go by (extrapolating) then we should see a 10.4.11 or even 10.4.12. Given the timeframe that is not very likely so a final update is likely to be 10.4.10. It will be released as usual, just before or after the release of Leopard.

Yup.
post #21 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morris View Post

I don't believe I've ever heard of a mathematical system where a 9 is not followed by a 10.

Well, what I meant was that no common *mathematical* system, where mathematics involves the manipulation of numeric symbols to calculate results, has a format of X.Y.Z, with two decimal points. That's not even a decimal number, so why people expect it to act like one is beyond me. It should be obvious at the most casual inspection that it's not what they think it is, without even knowing the whys and hows of its operation. It's a *counting* system, sure, but it's three separate counters, not one counter with a decimal delineator... or two. *shrug*

With up to 4+ months to go before Leopard hits, I'll be shocked if we *don't* see a 10.4.10 hit the street.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #22 of 55
You Guys, have it all wrong. "Apple" has never will do A Mac OS X (10.4.10) Update. Trust Me, this'll be the Final Update to "Tiger".

"Cheeta" (10.0), (10.0.4)

"Puma" (10.1), (10.1.5)

"Jaguar" (10.2), (10.2.8)

"Panther" (10.3), (10.3.9)

"Tiger" (10.4), (10.4.9)

"Leopard" (10.5), (10.5.8/10.5.9)


Now Guys, do You finally see A pattern here or not? It's so very clear that "Apple" has never has done A double digit ending Update and most very likely that they never will. That's why they're taking there Sweet Time on Releasing-It out because they most likely want to avoid doing an Mac OS X (10.4.10) Update. That's why that they're WithHolding it for so long. Get-It?
(*APPLE INC.'S OS X*) (*VERSION*) (*#10.7.3+BETA#*) (*BUILD*)
(*#11D36#*) (*ROARING LION USER*)
Reply
(*APPLE INC.'S OS X*) (*VERSION*) (*#10.7.3+BETA#*) (*BUILD*)
(*#11D36#*) (*ROARING LION USER*)
Reply
post #23 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by STEPHEN RAY SNELL View Post

"Tiger" (10.4), (10.4.9)

"Leopard" (10.5), (10.5.8/10.5.9)


Now Guys, do You finally see A pattern here or not? It's so very clear that "Apple" has never has done A double digit ending Update and most very likely that they never will. That's why they're taking there Sweet Time on Releasing-It out because they most likely want to avoid doing an Mac OS X (10.4.10) Update. That's why that they're WithHolding it for so long. Get-It?

Inventing two data points to support your pattern hurts your argument because they are your speculation.
post #24 of 55
The reason there has never been a double-digit point release is













There's never been a need for one.

Yeah, gee, that was hard. This may change. It may not change. We might see a 10.4.10. We might not. Some people's cluelessness about maths, however, will have zero impact on it. Point releases get made to fix bugs (and sometimes introduce minor new features), not to educate idiots.
post #25 of 55
My point excactly!!!
(*APPLE INC.'S OS X*) (*VERSION*) (*#10.7.3+BETA#*) (*BUILD*)
(*#11D36#*) (*ROARING LION USER*)
Reply
(*APPLE INC.'S OS X*) (*VERSION*) (*#10.7.3+BETA#*) (*BUILD*)
(*#11D36#*) (*ROARING LION USER*)
Reply
post #26 of 55
Er... what?
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #27 of 55
"Cheeta" (10.0), (10.0.4)

"Puma" (10.1), (10.1.5)

"Jaguar" (10.2), (10.2.8)

"Panther" (10.3), (10.3.9)

"Tiger" (10.4), (10.4.10)

"Leopard" (10.5), (10.5.11/10.5.12)

I see a pattern, no doubt...
post #28 of 55
As someone has said if it was a maths system then there wouldn't be 2 decimal point.

That is why 10.4.10 wont be much of a problem i think.
post #29 of 55
Hell, they could screw you all up and release a 10.4.9A and then a 10.4.9B or whatever they want.... or heaven forbid Mac OS 2007 Service Pack 1...... software companies can release their versions in whatever format they choose and it has no basis on anything mathematical other that being a logical progression to show an increment from the previous version.
post #30 of 55
Guys trust Me, it'll never ever happen, alright.
(*APPLE INC.'S OS X*) (*VERSION*) (*#10.7.3+BETA#*) (*BUILD*)
(*#11D36#*) (*ROARING LION USER*)
Reply
(*APPLE INC.'S OS X*) (*VERSION*) (*#10.7.3+BETA#*) (*BUILD*)
(*#11D36#*) (*ROARING LION USER*)
Reply
post #31 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by STEPHEN RAY SNELL View Post

Guys trust Me, it'll never ever happen, alright.

That's not a rational argument.
post #32 of 55
Guys, if You don't want to belive Me, then ask an "Apple Expert" @ "Apple" then.
(*APPLE INC.'S OS X*) (*VERSION*) (*#10.7.3+BETA#*) (*BUILD*)
(*#11D36#*) (*ROARING LION USER*)
Reply
(*APPLE INC.'S OS X*) (*VERSION*) (*#10.7.3+BETA#*) (*BUILD*)
(*#11D36#*) (*ROARING LION USER*)
Reply
post #33 of 55
Now wait A minute. You were the excact same people that said that there wasn't going to be an Mac OS X (10.4.8) or Mac OS X (10.4.9) Update for that matter. Now your talking about (10.4.10) and (10.4.12)? You Guys are double minded. Somebody, please Make-Up your Minds!!!
(*APPLE INC.'S OS X*) (*VERSION*) (*#10.7.3+BETA#*) (*BUILD*)
(*#11D36#*) (*ROARING LION USER*)
Reply
(*APPLE INC.'S OS X*) (*VERSION*) (*#10.7.3+BETA#*) (*BUILD*)
(*#11D36#*) (*ROARING LION USER*)
Reply
post #34 of 55
Ah yes, I remember that discussion...

I do not think that there will be a 10.4.1x update SIMPLY because Apple is all about the whole experience, down to the very last detail. Your average Joe Blow user (not geeks like most of us) will be confused by it. I understand that this is obviously NOT a decimal-based system, however your average user will not see it that way.

I agree, "Security Updates" will take the place of a 10.4.1x version path. That or a 10.4.9[A|B|C|...] is a possibility. However, I am leaning more towards the "Security Updates" path.
-- Mike Eggleston
-- Mac Finatic since 1984.
-- Proud Member of PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals
-- Wii #: 8913 3004 4519 2027
Reply
-- Mike Eggleston
-- Mac Finatic since 1984.
-- Proud Member of PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals
-- Wii #: 8913 3004 4519 2027
Reply
post #35 of 55
I just want the darn 10.4.9 update and will accept anything they put out after whatever it maybe number or security patch.
post #36 of 55
Dude, I'm with You on that One!!!
(*APPLE INC.'S OS X*) (*VERSION*) (*#10.7.3+BETA#*) (*BUILD*)
(*#11D36#*) (*ROARING LION USER*)
Reply
(*APPLE INC.'S OS X*) (*VERSION*) (*#10.7.3+BETA#*) (*BUILD*)
(*#11D36#*) (*ROARING LION USER*)
Reply
post #37 of 55
Okay Guys,

I've heard that "Leopard" is Coming-Out @ the end of March. Since "Apple" is still WithHolding the Mac OS X (10.4.9) Update @ Bay, then why in the World that they want To-Do an Mac OS X (10.4.10) Update???
(*APPLE INC.'S OS X*) (*VERSION*) (*#10.7.3+BETA#*) (*BUILD*)
(*#11D36#*) (*ROARING LION USER*)
Reply
(*APPLE INC.'S OS X*) (*VERSION*) (*#10.7.3+BETA#*) (*BUILD*)
(*#11D36#*) (*ROARING LION USER*)
Reply
post #38 of 55
Ok, where did you hear that Leopard is coming out at the end of March?? Latest estimates say at WWDC. So if you know something, then please tell us.
-- Mike Eggleston
-- Mac Finatic since 1984.
-- Proud Member of PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals
-- Wii #: 8913 3004 4519 2027
Reply
-- Mike Eggleston
-- Mac Finatic since 1984.
-- Proud Member of PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals
-- Wii #: 8913 3004 4519 2027
Reply
post #39 of 55
No One said they'd "do" an Update To (10.4.10) Just because They wanted to. The "entire" Reason That We said it was "possible" was If Leopard was coming out in June, because Over Four "months" without an Update would be Rare. Yes???


And besides, the info that Leopard is coming out at the end of March is sheer speculation, I assume you saw it at ThinkSecret. May happen, may not. If it does, then there's little time between 10.4.9 and Leopard, in which case the likelihood of 10.4.10 decreases significantly. If Leopard does go to the end of Spring, ie, into June, then the likelihood of 10.4.10 goes up significantly. We won't know until we see what happens, obviously.

What is fairly certain, is that choosing not to release 10.4.10 *solely* because it might confuse some yahoos is a really, really *REALLY* unlikely outcome.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #40 of 55
The other day, I was drinking in a local bar, and there was this drunk Apple employee who was muttering something about Steve Jobs wanting an update after 10.4.9 to distract from his options fiasco.

10.4.9v2 CONFIRMED!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Fixes continue to mount in Mac OS X 10.4.9 seeds