You raise an interesting notion. Are we certain there were zero changes between GM and release
And given the comments about 'with use' how do we know the issue isn't really from some third party app or plug in and not ML alone
The GM and the MAS images have the same checksum, so they are identical. The concern is if MAS would start requiring users to log in, so MAS can check that you've actually purchased ML, before letting you update. This was not the case with the dev previews, it doesn't appear to be the case right now and I doubt I will be in the near future either.
You raise an interesting notion. Are we certain there were zero changes between GM and release
And given the comments about 'with use' how do we know the issue isn't really from some third party app or plug in and not ML alone
The standard assumption is that if there were any changes we would have seen another dev preview. As long as there were no major showstoppers in the GM, it's general practice to further iron things out in an update after the release.
Report: Microsoft to change Windows 8 OEM activation
While Microsoft's largely left its Windows activation the same since Windows XP, it appears the company may now be changing its activation requirements with the upcoming October 26 release of Windows 8.
A new report from Justin Kerr of Maximum PC claims Microsoft is looking to close "loopholes" in the current activation requirements in an effort to reduce piracy rates for its signature operating system. One of the ways Microsoft hopes to achieve this is by modifying the OEM versions of the operating system, making it more difficult for pirates to avoid paying Microsoft for the operating system. Instead of providing OEMs with a single activation key, Kerr states, OEMs "will be required to write a unique Windows product key into the BIOS of each new machine shipped."
Additionally, OEMs will now have to contact Microsoft directly to obtain product keys. OEM machines will now feature a "Genuine Microsoft" sticker to alert consumers of the machine's authenticity. Certificates of authenticity were previously the only requirement Microsoft imposed on OEMs to ensure authenticity.
Kerr states the new OEM activation requirements will only be used in Windows 8 products (and presumably Windows RT products as well), although the program could potentially be expanded to Microsoft's previous operating systems.
The standard assumption is that if there were any changes we would have seen another dev preview. As long as there were no major showstoppers in the GM, it's general practice to further iron things out in an update after the release.
At least that's what I'm accustomed to seeing.
There have been times that Apple has had a release version which was different than the GM, but only for trivial changes. And I don't think it's happened any time recently.
Now that you mention Windows . . .
{discussion of activation in Windows 8}
They're talking about 'closing loopholes'. So it's going to get even more intrusive and demanding? It's bad enough already. It's bad enough that Windows bit rot means that you have to reinstall the OS regularly, but when you have to go through the entire activation process every time (not to mention the 25 characters of serial numbers), it's ridiculous.
The GM and the MAS images have the same checksum, so they are identical. The concern is if MAS would start requiring users to log in, so MAS can check that you've actually purchased ML, before letting you update. This was not the case with the dev previews, it doesn't appear to be the case right now and I doubt I will be in the near future either.
You need to login if you are doing recovery from the internet but thats about it.
Thanks for continuing to publicly beta test Mountain Lion for me. I'm still waiting for all the launch bugs to be solved and workarounds for Apple-omitted/changed features to be posted online.
Strangely, my MacBook seems to be running just fine without those 200+ features installed just yet. :P
Thanks for continuing to publicly beta test Mountain Lion for me. I'm still waiting for all the launch bugs to be solved and workarounds for Apple-omitted/changed features to be posted online.
Strangely, my MacBook seems to be running just fine without those 200+ features installed just yet. :P
So you post to claim you're better than everyone else who has Mountain Lion and are experiencing absolutely no problems and then marginalize your own argument by accepting that you don't even need it and therefore have no reason to be commenting on future releases nor reason to be taken seriously about your previous comment?
It turns out that the problem is not battery life at all, but that the RAM gets full and miscalculates the time remaining. So, battery life is there, but the indicator says otherwise. A shutdown followed by a startup holding Command/Option/R and P clears out the ram and battery indicator goes back to normal.
If course, indexing will always use battery life, it didn't account for readings of "100%, 55 minutes"
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Using a five year old, hopelessly out of date operating system shouldn't make anyone glad.
At least it's not Windows XP.
The GM and the MAS images have the same checksum, so they are identical. The concern is if MAS would start requiring users to log in, so MAS can check that you've actually purchased ML, before letting you update. This was not the case with the dev previews, it doesn't appear to be the case right now and I doubt I will be in the near future either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
You raise an interesting notion. Are we certain there were zero changes between GM and release
And given the comments about 'with use' how do we know the issue isn't really from some third party app or plug in and not ML alone
The standard assumption is that if there were any changes we would have seen another dev preview. As long as there were no major showstoppers in the GM, it's general practice to further iron things out in an update after the release.
At least that's what I'm accustomed to seeing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macosxp
At least it's not Windows XP.
Now that you mention Windows . . .
Quote:
http://www.neowin.net/news/report-microsoft-to-change-windows-8-oem-activation
Report: Microsoft to change Windows 8 OEM activation
While Microsoft's largely left its Windows activation the same since Windows XP, it appears the company may now be changing its activation requirements with the upcoming October 26 release of Windows 8.
A new report from Justin Kerr of Maximum PC claims Microsoft is looking to close "loopholes" in the current activation requirements in an effort to reduce piracy rates for its signature operating system. One of the ways Microsoft hopes to achieve this is by modifying the OEM versions of the operating system, making it more difficult for pirates to avoid paying Microsoft for the operating system. Instead of providing OEMs with a single activation key, Kerr states, OEMs "will be required to write a unique Windows product key into the BIOS of each new machine shipped."
Additionally, OEMs will now have to contact Microsoft directly to obtain product keys. OEM machines will now feature a "Genuine Microsoft" sticker to alert consumers of the machine's authenticity. Certificates of authenticity were previously the only requirement Microsoft imposed on OEMs to ensure authenticity.
Kerr states the new OEM activation requirements will only be used in Windows 8 products (and presumably Windows RT products as well), although the program could potentially be expanded to Microsoft's previous operating systems.
There have been times that Apple has had a release version which was different than the GM, but only for trivial changes. And I don't think it's happened any time recently.
They're talking about 'closing loopholes'. So it's going to get even more intrusive and demanding? It's bad enough already. It's bad enough that Windows bit rot means that you have to reinstall the OS regularly, but when you have to go through the entire activation process every time (not to mention the 25 characters of serial numbers), it's ridiculous.
Correct.
Leopard was no shining OS when it was released. A complete dog until a few revisions passed by.
Quote:
Originally Posted by R3negade
The GM and the MAS images have the same checksum, so they are identical. The concern is if MAS would start requiring users to log in, so MAS can check that you've actually purchased ML, before letting you update. This was not the case with the dev previews, it doesn't appear to be the case right now and I doubt I will be in the near future either.
You need to login if you are doing recovery from the internet but thats about it.
I updated on two of my MBP's... mid 2009 and mid 2010.... both running fine. No issue so far. No battery issues, nothing that I can tell.
I like some of the features, the dictation is very nice, the messages is nice...
Now I just want to know how to clear off and do a clean install to see if that makes any better than it is!?!?
Anyone have links or the steps on how to do that?
thanks!
Thanks for continuing to publicly beta test Mountain Lion for me. I'm still waiting for all the launch bugs to be solved and workarounds for Apple-omitted/changed features to be posted online.
Strangely, my MacBook seems to be running just fine without those 200+ features installed just yet. :P
Originally Posted by vandil
Thanks for continuing to publicly beta test Mountain Lion for me. I'm still waiting for all the launch bugs to be solved and workarounds for Apple-omitted/changed features to be posted online.
Strangely, my MacBook seems to be running just fine without those 200+ features installed just yet. :P
So you post to claim you're better than everyone else who has Mountain Lion and are experiencing absolutely no problems and then marginalize your own argument by accepting that you don't even need it and therefore have no reason to be commenting on future releases nor reason to be taken seriously about your previous comment?
It turns out that the problem is not battery life at all, but that the RAM gets full and miscalculates the time remaining. So, battery life is there, but the indicator says otherwise. A shutdown followed by a startup holding Command/Option/R and P clears out the ram and battery indicator goes back to normal.
If course, indexing will always use battery life, it didn't account for readings of "100%, 55 minutes"