Fixes continue to mount in Mac OS X 10.4.9 seeds

Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
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.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 54
    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!
  • Reply 2 of 54
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Well, we assume this is the last one. 10.4.10 is a possibility, given as much as another 4.5 months before Leopard.
  • Reply 3 of 54
    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.
  • Reply 4 of 54
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    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.
  • Reply 5 of 54
    wingswings Posts: 261member
    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.
  • Reply 6 of 54
    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.
  • Reply 7 of 54
    Any VPN fixes?
  • Reply 8 of 54
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    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.
  • Reply 9 of 54
    eckingecking Posts: 1,588member
    looking forward to what is most likely gonna be the last upgrade tiger can sink it's claws into. Pun intended.
  • Reply 10 of 54
    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.
  • Reply 11 of 54
    rob05aurob05au Posts: 348member
    mainly because 10.3.9 was the only one use thus far.



    Time will tell if they do or not.
  • Reply 12 of 54
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    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.
  • Reply 13 of 54
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    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.
  • Reply 14 of 54
    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
  • Reply 15 of 54
    jeffdmjeffdm Posts: 12,946member
    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.
  • Reply 16 of 54
    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
  • Reply 17 of 54
    doh123doh123 Posts: 323member
    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
  • Reply 18 of 54
    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.
  • Reply 19 of 54
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    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.
  • Reply 20 of 54
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.