i recently updated my system to 10.4.7, but i think it may have been a bad idea as it likes to turn itself off. if i wanted to revert back to 10.4.6 how would i go about it?
cheers
p.s. the disks that came with my macbook were 10.4.6, would this help?
You can't because Apple is stupid. You have to re-install 10.4.6 from the CD from scratch. You can't "undo" updates.
Yeah I think OS X should have that feature. Even if it wastes a few hundred MB.
Still, the alternative archive install works ok, it just takes a little bit longer.
Since he has 10.4.6, it should only take about 45 minutes.
Just boot up from the CD, choose to archive install and import your user data. You don't really need to back anything up as this will just replace your system but you might want to anyway.
Me too, I would prefer reverting back to 10.4.6, as 10.4.7 is screwed on my system. I don't have any major issues yet, but there's something wrong with the Finder and icons.
It's completely impossible to reliably implement with their current Installer. The Installer package format would need a rewrite, meaning dozens of dozens of applications would need adjustments.
It may sound nice to have as a pipe dream, but in practice, it wouldn't work well anyway. The better solution is to simply restore a backup.
It's completely impossible to reliably implement with their current Installer. The Installer package format would need a rewrite, meaning dozens of dozens of applications would need adjustments.
It may sound nice to have as a pipe dream, but in practice, it wouldn't work well anyway. The better solution is to simply restore a backup.
I don't think it would need to be anything to do with an installer. It would be a part of the system where each system update is installed in such a way that it can be rolled back. For example, let's say OS X needs component x. Then all it would do is have an alias to that component. An update would update the alias but the system would keep note of the change and it could be reverted back to the old link if needed.
The system would maintain a list of all the updates so there would be somewhere you could go and see a list of 10.4.0, 10.4.1, 10.4.2 etc and just pick one. Then the system would revert back to that state. It's useful for the same reasons non-destructive editing is useful in Aperture.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chucker
You did create a backup, right?
No?
Well, your loss.
I think that was a bit low. I'm not sure how a backup would help him restore his system anyway. Surely a backup would replace all his files too.
It would be a part of the system where each system update is installed in such a way that it can be rolled back.
Which requires an assembly of all files and changes (e.g. permission changes) performed by that system update.
Which requires cooperation from the installer.
Quote:
For example, let's say OS X needs component x. Then all it would do is have an alias to that component. An update would update the alias but the system would keep note of the change and it could be reverted back to the old link if needed.
That works for files, but not for more complex changes. For example, running shell scripts cannot easily be rolled back at all; certainly not through aliases.
Quote:
I'm not sure how a backup would help him restore his system anyway. Surely a backup would replace all his files too. [/B]
Well, that's the point. If you're worried that a system update messes up your system (never happened to me, but it sure is possible), and if you don't have time to manually restore things, simply:
1) backup
2) install the update
3a) cheer if things work out
3b) restore the backup if they don't, and forget about the update for the time being.
I'm staying with 10.4.7, no "major" issues for me that I'm aware of, so stepping back to 10.4.6 doesn't make any sense for me 8). For those with 'significant' issues when it comes to 10.4.7, then a rollback is probably justified?
Comments
Originally posted by Aquatic
You can't because Apple is stupid. You have to re-install 10.4.6 from the CD from scratch. You can't "undo" updates.
Yeah I think OS X should have that feature. Even if it wastes a few hundred MB.
Still, the alternative archive install works ok, it just takes a little bit longer.
Since he has 10.4.6, it should only take about 45 minutes.
Just boot up from the CD, choose to archive install and import your user data. You don't really need to back anything up as this will just replace your system but you might want to anyway.
Originally posted by Aquatic
You can't because Apple is stupid. You have to re-install 10.4.6 from the CD from scratch. You can't "undo" updates.
Of course you can, you just restore from backup.
Originally posted by Marvin
Yeah I think OS X should have that feature.
It's completely impossible to reliably implement with their current Installer. The Installer package format would need a rewrite, meaning dozens of dozens of applications would need adjustments.
It may sound nice to have as a pipe dream, but in practice, it wouldn't work well anyway. The better solution is to simply restore a backup.
You did create a backup, right?
No?
Well, your loss.
Originally posted by Chucker
It's completely impossible to reliably implement with their current Installer. The Installer package format would need a rewrite, meaning dozens of dozens of applications would need adjustments.
It may sound nice to have as a pipe dream, but in practice, it wouldn't work well anyway. The better solution is to simply restore a backup.
I don't think it would need to be anything to do with an installer. It would be a part of the system where each system update is installed in such a way that it can be rolled back. For example, let's say OS X needs component x. Then all it would do is have an alias to that component. An update would update the alias but the system would keep note of the change and it could be reverted back to the old link if needed.
The system would maintain a list of all the updates so there would be somewhere you could go and see a list of 10.4.0, 10.4.1, 10.4.2 etc and just pick one. Then the system would revert back to that state. It's useful for the same reasons non-destructive editing is useful in Aperture.
Originally posted by Chucker
You did create a backup, right?
No?
Well, your loss.
I think that was a bit low. I'm not sure how a backup would help him restore his system anyway. Surely a backup would replace all his files too.
Originally posted by Marvin
It would be a part of the system where each system update is installed in such a way that it can be rolled back.
Which requires an assembly of all files and changes (e.g. permission changes) performed by that system update.
Which requires cooperation from the installer.
For example, let's say OS X needs component x. Then all it would do is have an alias to that component. An update would update the alias but the system would keep note of the change and it could be reverted back to the old link if needed.
That works for files, but not for more complex changes. For example, running shell scripts cannot easily be rolled back at all; certainly not through aliases.
I'm not sure how a backup would help him restore his system anyway. Surely a backup would replace all his files too. [/B]
Well, that's the point.
1) backup
2) install the update
3a) cheer if things work out
3b) restore the backup if they don't, and forget about the update for the time being.