Apple to deploy Mac OS X 10.4.1 for testing

2456

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 113
    r3dx0rr3dx0r Posts: 201member
    Quote:

    Safari's in Debug mode, that may have something to do with it.



    there's a debug 'mode' ? afaik it's just a menu item. visible or hidden, this shouldn't be responsible for any crashes.
  • Reply 22 of 113
    tinktink Posts: 395member
    While I think the economic argument is very valid and a good practice, Apple testing does need to improve. I know that I am weary of the Apple Software update panel on my critical systems (as well as my not so critical systems).



    In regards to Safari quits this may be my issue since I have Speed Download. I'll check on it when i get home. Macintouch
    Quote:

    May 5, 2005



    Tips



    John Tierney

    After installing 10.4 (archive and preserve settings on a G4) I was experiencing a lot of unexpended quits from Safari. I finally traced it down to Speed Download 3 that I honestly had forgotten I had installed. After running their included un-install program Safari has been much more stable.



    In regards to DiscWarrior, I have 3.02 and wrote tech support to see when an update will be posted since they only had earlier version upgrading noted on the site.



    They wrote back noting...

    Quote:

    DiskWarrior 3.0.3 (adding Mac OS X 10.4.x "Tiger" compatibility) will be

    available later in the week as a free download from the Alsoft website

    for current users of DiskWarrior 3.0., 3.0.1 & 3.0.2. This download will

    walk you through creating an updated DiskWarrior CD using your original

    disk, a CD burner and a blank CD-R.



    A DiskWarrior 3.0.3 Update CD will also be available directly from

    Alsoft. For current users of DiskWarrior 3.x this updated CD will be

    available for about $20. These can be ordered by contacting our Sales

    Department at 1-800-257-6381 (US Toll Free) or at 1-281-353-4090

    (International).



  • Reply 23 of 113
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    It is continuous while they are still in pre-release. That's what pre-release development is. It can't be done any other way.

    But beta testers aren't supposed to see any bugs in the final stage. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is.



    Apple takes a short cut here. Over the years I worked on any number of software projects., as well as beta tested many others. None of these products, including Photoshop, were ever released with KNOWN bugs.



    The better the beta program the more bugs are found and fixed before release. Apple is known to have a poor beta program. They keep it to as small a group as they can. If they spread it out more, the way developers have been asking them to do, then a lot more of these bugs would have been found out earlier and squashed.



    I'm sorry, but making excuses for them doesn't change it. Some of these bugs are more severe than others, but to say that if it isn't a show stopper it's ok for release is just too fanboy.



    Let's admit when Apple screws up. They do, you know.



    If MS comes out with buggy software, our Mac community points, and says how incompetent they are. We sometimes have to point that same finger backwards.



    Yes, they shouldn't have released until they finished the cleanup phase. That's what it's for.



    They did this to get some cash for this quarter that would otherwise go to the next quarter. I hope it's not to cover for some bad news.



    But it wasn't in the interest of their customers. The first adopters, such as myself, would have been happy if it were released at the end of May, or during the conference. No one would have been the wiser. Everyone would still have rejoiced that it came out on time.




    Actually you are wrong that beta testers aren't supposed to see any bugs.



    Beta testers are to tag any and all bugs that are SHOWSTOPPERS.



    Submitted bugs then get validated, confirmed and if a workaround is present gets implemented until an elegant solution can be implemented.



    If critical system issues are still prevalent then showstoppers are prevalent and the system gets that round of solutions implemented, a new build is produced and sent to beta testers for another thorough regression.



    If still some non-showstopper bugs are prevalent that aren't addressed in the beta build release notes those get filed as New. Others get tagged as a redundant bug cross-referenced with the earlier verified bug in the Tracker solution at Apple.



    If no showstoppers are still prevalent the build is rolled GM, stamped and pressed for us to use. Upon that build they return to stomping out workaround bug fixes and the rest of the bugs in-house testing can catch for the next incremental free update.
  • Reply 24 of 113
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,585member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by mdriftmeyer

    Actually you are wrong that beta testers aren't supposed to see any bugs.



    Beta testers are to tag any and all bugs that are SHOWSTOPPERS.



    Submitted bugs then get validated, confirmed and if a workaround is present gets implemented until an elegant solution can be implemented.



    If critical system issues are still prevalent then showstoppers are prevalent and the system gets that round of solutions implemented, a new build is produced and sent to beta testers for another thorough regression.



    If still some non-showstopper bugs are prevalent that aren't addressed in the beta build release notes those get filed as New. Others get tagged as a redundant bug cross-referenced with the earlier verified bug in the Tracker solution at Apple.



    If no showstoppers are still prevalent the build is rolled GM, stamped and pressed for us to use. Upon that build they return to stomping out workaround bug fixes and the rest of the bugs in-house testing can catch for the next incremental free update.




    If that's how Apple is doing it, then they are taking shortcuts. Buggy features should be delisted if they can't be fixed on release. If the feature is major then it must be fixed for release.



    Many times over the years that very methodology has been used. Adobe uses it as well. If a feature has a bug, and it isn't fixable for release, it is removed. If it is a major feature, then Adobe has released a .5 update later on with that and others that it was working on in the meantime.
  • Reply 25 of 113
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    It is continuous while they are still in pre-release. That's what pre-release development is. It can't be done any other way.



    Correct.



    Quote:

    But beta testers aren't supposed to see any bugs in the final stage. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is.



    I'm sorry, but you must be testing 100-lines-of-code shareware then.



    Quote:

    Apple takes a short cut here. Over the years I worked on any number of software projects., as well as beta tested many others. None of these products, including Photoshop, were ever released with KNOWN bugs.



    I'm 110% sure no version of Photoshop ever got released without known bugs. And operating systems have an order of a magnitude more code, much of which in OS X's case isn't even Apple's own code and thus not directly under their control.



    Quote:

    The better the beta program the more bugs are found and fixed before release.



    Duh.



    Quote:

    Apple is known to have a poor beta program. They keep it to as small a group as they can. If they spread it out more, the way developers have been asking them to do, then a lot more of these bugs would have been found out earlier and squashed.



    And more moronic beta testers will leak builds than already do.



    Quote:

    Some of these bugs are more severe than others, but to say that if it isn't a show stopper it's ok for release is just too fanboy.



    Sure, go ahead, give any and all software developer fanboy attributes.



    OR you could get a clue and look into public bug trackers. You would realize that no big software projects exist without known bugs. Mozilla, GNOME and similar projects have, over the years, accumulated several thousands of unresolved bugs. And not so because they're badly-managed.



    Quote:

    Let's admit when Apple screws up. They do, you know.



    Yes, they do.



    Quote:

    If MS comes out with buggy software, our Mac community points, and says how incompetent they are.



    I don't, unless there's alot of major bugs that can be easily reproduced. Which in no Windows release I've tested myself was the case.



    Windows NT 3.50 had 40,000 known bugs upon release. Windows NT 3.51 had 11,000 known bugs upon release. Just a few numbers for you to deal with.



    Quote:

    Yes, they shouldn't have released until they finished the cleanup phase. That's what it's for.



    There was a cleanup phase of several months.



    Quote:

    They did this to get some cash for this quarter that would otherwise go to the next quarter.



    FUD.
  • Reply 26 of 113
    xoolxool Posts: 2,460member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    Apple takes a short cut here. Over the years I worked on any number of software projects., as well as beta tested many others. None of these products, including Photoshop, were ever released with KNOWN bugs.









    Products are shipped with known bugs all the time. If a minor bug crashes 0.001 % of your users, you're not gonna hold back the release. It all depends on the product, distribution, the audience, and the company however. At the end of the day there's a business to run.
  • Reply 27 of 113
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,585member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chucker

    Correct.







    I'm sorry, but you must be testing 100-lines-of-code shareware then.







    I'm 110% sure no version of Photoshop ever got released without known bugs. And operating systems have an order of a magnitude more code, much of which in OS X's case isn't even Apple's own code and thus not directly under their control.







    Duh.







    And more moronic beta testers will leak builds than already do.







    Sure, go ahead, give any and all software developer fanboy attributes.



    OR you could get a clue and look into public bug trackers. You would realize that no big software projects exist without known bugs. Mozilla, GNOME and similar projects have, over the years, accumulated several thousands of unresolved bugs. And not so because they're badly-managed.







    Yes, they do.







    I don't, unless there's alot of major bugs that can be easily reproduced. Which in no Windows release I've tested myself was the case.



    Windows NT 3.50 had 40,000 known bugs upon release. Windows NT 3.51 had 11,000 known bugs upon release. Just a few numbers for you to deal with.







    There was a cleanup phase of several months.







    FUD.




    If you had read my previous post completely, you would have seen what I've said about my beta experience. You can be as sure as you want to about Photoshop. But don't speak about what you don't know. With Photoshop, I've been beta testing since 1.0.3. Adobe has NEVER allowed a known bug out. does that mean that a (rare) bug didn't make it through? Of course not. I've also written some rather lengthy Fortran code for the Vax regarding imaging. I've been involved in other projects as well. I started learning Fortran IV in high school in 1965. So I've seen this for awhile.



    None were 100 line shareware programs.



    I'm aware of how complex a modern OS is. I chided a poster once for "claiming" to be a beta tester for Apple's OS, and having tested, as he put it, ----E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G----. We all know that it's just not possible.



    He also claimed that Apple did so as well. Also nonsense. I also pointed out that there is code in BSD that no one knows anything about.



    So I do understand the issues.



    But we are talking about KNOWN bugs. Bugs that affect the operation. There are bugs that don't affect the operation, and even if these are known, they are often left for a later time (if ever). But I'm not referring to those.



    Apple should stop caring if moronic developers leak builds or not. The one good thing about MS is that they have public betas all the time. What MS does about the feedback is another issue, but Apple should take a look at that.



    I'm not giving developers fanboy attributes, just Kickaha and friends.



    I'm also not interested in what open source does. They are looking for people to help with their public projects. That's a totally different environment.



    And as you are telling me to look at them, you should as well. All of these open source projects have more than one track and build. The stable build, which is the debugged and official release, and the experimental releases which are still in development.



    That would be almost what MS does with their technology releases, like the past and current Longhorn releases (and future). And the XP release. Except that while they are looking for feedback, they are not looking for volunteer programmers.



    Of course the XP release isn't all that great, but that's MS.



    Apple used to be known for very stable and bug free OS releases. Like it or not, this release is considered, by those developers you mentioned, to be the buggiest release since 10.0.



    As I've said MS is not the pinnacle of perfection. They are not my, and shouldn't be your, standard. Apple has always set a higher standard. I would just like to see them stay with it.



    They couldn't have had a cleanup phase of several months because they were continuing to add features into March. The cleanup phase begins after the feature set is locked. Unless some features are removed at the last minute because of intractable bugs.
  • Reply 28 of 113
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    (edit) My apologies. Whilst my original point still stands, I don't think this particular post of mine added anything of use to the thread.



    Just for the record though, with the exception of Windows XP x64 Edition, fully public beta tests are very uncommon at Microsoft.
  • Reply 29 of 113
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by melgross

    But beta testers aren't supposed to see any bugs in the final stage. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is.



    Apple takes a short cut here..






    So you are saying that Windows is always released with every known bug fixed?



    At some point you have to put it out there, and fix some things later.



    As far as developers complaining. What I've heard and what was said on Ars Technica is that Apple has always said the way the kernal was set up was not permanent and would change. Many are confused as to why some developers were not prepared.
  • Reply 30 of 113
    kcmackcmac Posts: 1,051member
    This whole idea about never sending anything out until it has no bugs (perfection in my book) is the same reason some people keep taking college courses, piling on degrees and never stepping into the real world.



    Name one profession or one product in any line of business that would ever be able to say they or it is 100% ready.



    This argument is just tiresome.
  • Reply 31 of 113
    voxappsvoxapps Posts: 236member
    I've been doing software and hardware product management for over 15 years, so I think I can add a bit to this discussion from the "corporate" perspective. In software development, there are usually two high-level questions: 1) when is the ship date, and 2) how many bugs of what severity level are acceptable for a released product. Nobody likes to ship buggy products, but the reality is that, at some point, you've got to say "ship it!"



    Many software and hardware companies have moved to the "train leaving the station" model: the software will ship on (insert date here), and it will either be ready to ship by then or troublesome features will be removed to make it ready to ship (i.e., they will "miss the train"). The "train" model ensures that *something* is released on time to meet the expectations of customers, stockholders, the media, etc., and it also ensures that development resources get freed-up for other projects. For public companies, shipping late can have disastrous consequences for stock prices and can put a company at a competitive disadvantage if another company gets their product to market first.



    Most product bugs are ranked by severity (or priority): P1 bugs prevent a product from shipping: they affect the primary function of the product for many users and cannot be worked around. Products should never ship with any P1 bugs. P2 bugs are somewhat less severe or have work-arounds; a small number of P2s are present in most shipping software. Priorities often go as deep as 9 levels (a P9 is often related to documentation or minor appearance flaws that have no affect on performance or usability, and is classified as an "enhancement").



    I have never heard of any software product shipping without any bugs at all.



    Beta testing is really hard for corporate developers. You generally want to keep betas under some control (i.e., not available to just anyone) to allow a bit of surprise to customers, to prevent late betas from being distributed illegally, and to allow the project managers to keep track of test results. Unfortunately, there are so many permutations of hardware and software, that it is literally impossible to develop test cases that cover everything. A problem is that 500 public beta testers may essentially test the same things, and none may hit the critical sequence that triggers a problem. Also, while many beta testers have good intentions, it is often true that they - as a group - don't do the thorough testing expected by the developers.



    Some companies I've worked with are even considering paid beta programs: you get the software and a list of things to test; when you submit documentation on schedule that shows test results for specific tests, you get paid. Otherwise, you get a "thank you" and no payment.



    I don't plan to upgrade to Tiger until at least 10.4.1, but I think anyone who's using 10.4.0 should be getting a fairly solid release, especially when used on unmodified hardware running common apps.
  • Reply 32 of 113
    mpmoriartympmoriarty Posts: 289member
    I hope this update fixes some of the quirkiness of Spotlight.
  • Reply 33 of 113
    tomahawktomahawk Posts: 179member
    I can pretty much promise you Adobe lets software out with known bugs...



    We've worked with Adobe pretty closely on a variety of issues we have had with their software (we're a rather large unit). Adobe has even sent techs to our site to see first hand what our issues are.



    So far, we still see issues we reported early in the previous version of Creative Suite in the new one. We also have found issues in the first two days of using the new version that we may consider show stoppers until fixed.



    This tells me either Adobe is doing a pretty crappy job of testing different environments or they realize they have to make a buck or two too and can fix some problems later.



    I also agree Adobe simply turns off a variety of features that they can't get working well. It's a double edge sword. How often do you suppose they consider all the "planned" updates they cut when they set their pricing?
  • Reply 34 of 113
    bwhalerbwhaler Posts: 260member
    I am concerned about the size of the update.



    It's too small. Given all of the bugs in Tiger, it's way too small.



    I really love Tiger, and want to move to it on my full-time work machines, but it is simply way to buggy. I was hoping for an enormous upgrade.



    Yes, we all know they shipped a "kinda-good-enough" version that needed at least 2 more months of bug fixing and testing. I just hope to God 10.4.1 is a solid release. The bugs in Tiger are embarrassingly bad, and I can't believe Apple hasn't seen bad press about it.



    They got lucky. Let's hope they don't push their luck.
  • Reply 35 of 113
    bwhalerbwhaler Posts: 260member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MPMoriarty

    I hope this update fixes some of the quirkiness of Spotlight.



    I couldn't agree more.



    And the big problem is, if you can't trust Spotlight to find all of your files, then it is totally useless. It's not a work-around type bug.



    I am VERY concerned Spotlight was not one of the components mentioned for fixing in v10.4.1.



    I really hope this version is the one Apple SHOULD of shipped.
  • Reply 36 of 113
    johnqjohnq Posts: 2,763member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BWhaler

    The bugs in Tiger are embarrassingly bad, and I can't believe Apple hasn't seen bad press about it.



    They got lucky. Let's hope they don't push their luck.




    They haven't gotten bad press? They got lucky?



    Tiger Gripes?

    Apple Tiger doesn?t play with other hardware

    Apple's Tiger makes some companies growl

    Tiger Bugs Break Networking Software

    Tiger Networking Bugs

    Apple's Tiger not house trained, firms claim

    Network apps panic at Tiger kernel rewrite

    Wait a While Before Jumping on Apple's Tiger



    etc...



    I'm not saying they are all valid or point out a wide range of flaws, but the point is the bad headlines are out there and plentiful and that scares away the IT bean counters...and likely newbies/switchers.



    Yes, WE all have it and use it but we're a scant million or so.
  • Reply 37 of 113
    wnursewnurse Posts: 427member
    Quote:

    Hopefully, he does not develop software for NASA or a nuclear plant or an airplane.



    Actually, i have no idea what his point is. I read all his replies and still couldn't figure out what he was saying.. the best i could gather is that he is saying it's ok for apple to release a crappy operating system cause microsoft is crappier. Also i think he was saying no one releases 100% bug proof software. Hopefully, he does not develop software for NASA or a nuclear plant or an airplane. He is an example of someone who thinks he knows what's he talking about and actually sounds intelligent untill you start thinking of the implications of what he's saying. The space shuttle is one of the most complicated piece of hardware known to man and it has millions of lines of code. It's code probably rivals that of an operating system and it certainly would not be utilized with a known bug. An airplane is made by private companies who have all stayed in business by not releasing a product with known software bugs. Yes, a general purpose operating system is different from the software in a plane but to state that software is released with known bugs?. I work on a software project right now and we never release any software with a known bug. If it's known, it's fixed. I was kinda amused reading about all companies releasing software with known bugs.
  • Reply 38 of 113
    I've been a big fan of Apple for a long time, and love OS X.



    But Tiger really does have me feeling duped for the first time.



    I have never had the OS problems I've had with Tiger. I installed it on a G5 at work, tried spotlight, said 'cool', and walked away. 2 hours later, I came back to the machine which no one had touched and it was LOCKED UP SOLID.



    On another machine, installation mysteriously screwed up a bunch of fonts (reinstall with the identical options fixed that problem).



    Tiger churns the hard disk like crazy for hours (even with 1 GB+ RAM) until it builds the enormous caches and indexes it seems to require. The beach ball is omnipresent.



    Spotlight is a great thing. The RSS screen saver is pretty freaking cool. But Dashboard is a disappointment (I'll stick with the much better Konfabulator) and what, seriously, is up with the new Mail design? Was it an internal ugly app interface contest winner that accidently got burned onto the Golden master?



    I'm sorry, but I'm not recommending the upgrade to friends or coworkers. Maybe Apple is cutting beta testing to plug leaks and beat Microsoft. But it's going to hurt them in the long run if they continue hyping up stuff that turns out to be crap. They need to get upates out quick, before too many more people get turned off by 10.4.0.
  • Reply 39 of 113
    corradokidcorradokid Posts: 16member
    I hope this means Apple will be enabling Quartz 2D Extreme in 10.4.1....
  • Reply 40 of 113
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,585member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chucker

    I did read it completely. Spilling crap doesn't make you look any better.







    I could be wrong, but as far as I recall, there never was a 1.0.3 release.







    If that where the case, they would have gone bankrupt in the 1980s.







    No. Earlier, you were talking about known bugs at a whole, claiming that not a single one would be left through. That's bull.



    Now, claiming that only major bugs aren't left unfixed, that I can live with.







    Thanks, I'm sure they will appreciate your elaborately-reasoned and -justified argument on that.







    Um... right. For example, with Windows XP x64 Edition. Or Windows XP x64 Edition. Heck, did you know Windows XP x64 Edition was a public beta as well?



    Almost none of Microsoft's betas are public. They have a large-scale, free seeding program, yes. But not everyone gets through that either. So their betas are everything but public. Or can you point me to the download of Windows ME RC 2? Didn't think so.







    Developer-wise, it's the same.







    No shit. Look at Firefox 1.0, or GNOME 2.10, or whatever. None of those were released without >100 unfixed, known bugs.







    They still are.







    I have yet to test the final build and thus can't comment on this.







    Please prove this claim.







    No. Really.




    Sorry it took so long to get back.



    Spilling crap? You must be familliar with doing that, I've never heard the expression before.



    It should be 1.0.3, perhaps it was 1.0.2, it's been a long time.



    Now who's spilling crap? Photoshop did get expensive to add to. That's why they rewrote the program from the ground up a few years ago. To make it more modular.



    I was NEVER talking about bugs as a whole. How can you fix bugs you don't know about? And bugs that don't affect usability aren't considered to be important unless they interfere with later development.



    I'm sorry about the developer comment. I was in a hurry. I meant to repeat your "moronic beta testers" comment.



    You're right. ALMOST none of MS's beta's are public. But some are. At critical times.



    I'm talking about the OS's. I should have pointed that out, but I thought you knew, as you are writing as though you know how it works.



    Well, the final build is out, so test it.



    Go to several of the older threads on this subject here. You will find plenty of info on it. A large number of posters here who posted previously will recall it. It's something you should know, as you seem to be so aware of what Apple is doing on this.
Sign In or Register to comment.