Apple releases Mac OS X 10.5.4 update

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 82
    s.metcalfs.metcalf Posts: 1,026member
    You have a short-memory, what about the increased opacity of the menu-bar in 10.5.1 (I think)?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    On the point updates, I don't remember any UI changes, ever. Maybe there was one or two when the UI had a bug in it somewhere, then fixing it might be a UI change.



     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 62 of 82
    s.metcalfs.metcalf Posts: 1,026member
    Not noticed that but yes improved To-Do list functionality (finally). Can add notes and not just have a title for each to-do among other things.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by asterion View Post


    Several colleagues have dumped Mail due to its sporadic duplication and deletion of Notes and To Dos. I've stuck it out, but patience is wearing thin...



    A



     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 63 of 82
    jsonjson Posts: 54member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post


    Does anyone know if this update resolves any of the following issues:

    1- InDesign not hiding properly.

    2- Remembering share-point log-ins after sign-in.

    3- Wireless authentication delays after waking-up from sleep.



    Any new bugs?



    Concerning 3 I would say no. I have not seen any explicit error messages, but it still takes a considerable time to reconnect after sleep, and often it seems that some part of airport "re-starts" since the airport icon becomes "hollow" (the icon seen when turning off airport) then grey bars, then waiting, then black bars.



    I am using a Macbook core duo and an airport extreme as access point (with a TC as router).

    I have updated the TC and extreme to 7.3.2.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 64 of 82
    pbpb Posts: 4,255member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sambamac View Post


    Hi folks



    Today I installed the Mac OS X 10.5.4 Update on my MBP. It worked fine. Then I made a new bootable backup and defragmented my main disk with Drive Genius 2.0.3. This process terminated successfully. I was happy and tried to start my Mac from the main disk. Ha! No way!



    Why defragment your hard disk? Mac OS X does it automatically for any file below 20 MB. I don't know what would be the implications to go beyond that limit, but Apple should consider to.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 65 of 82
    mcarlingmcarling Posts: 1,106member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MartiNZ View Post


    Maybe 10.5.5 will save the world?



    Perhaps, but I think 10.5.5 might be another relatively small set of patches timed to provide support for Montevina-based systems. I would anticipate 10.5.6 would more likely be another jumbo release with hundreds of fixes.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 66 of 82
    sambamacsambamac Posts: 19member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PB View Post


    Why defragment your hard disk? Mac OS X does it automatically for any file below 20 MB. I don't know what would be the implications to go beyond that limit, but Apple should consider to.



    I think this is a discussion without ending. A lot of people say it's necessary and and others say it's not necessary. So what's the truth? Separate from this I had a very bad peformance on my disk and Drive Genius showed me this drive very defragmented. Under 10.5.3 I corrected my disk and after that the Performance was really better. Ok, this time I must admit, it was a mistake. it wasn't really necessary. But I did and it failed. Independent of the fact if it's necessary or not, It should work and Apple has to check it out. BTW, also PROSOFT should check it out.



    thanks for your reply!
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 67 of 82
    pbpb Posts: 4,255member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sambamac View Post


    I think this is a discussion without ending.



    Certainly. But there is one important point in this affair beyond debate: if you are not routinely working with large files and your hard drive has plenty of room left (not unusual these days), then the benefits from defragmenting are easily defeated by the risk of doing so.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sambamac View Post


    A lot of people say it's necessary and and others say it's not necessary. So what's the truth?



    See above. It depends on usage. I have an old Powerbook 12" with Panther in it. The installation is more than 4 years old. Yet, and although many large files (hundreds of MB's or some GB's each) have lived on its hard disk, it remains in exceptionally good shape performance-wise. Well, a logout is probably needed from time to time since the machine has just 640 MB of memory, but that's all. I would never try defragmenting it. Even though it has less than 3 GB free left.



    I had tried defragmenting in the old OS 9 days with Disk Warrior (I think that was it). Apart the eventual placebo effect, I saw no difference. For my use it was just not necessary and I completely gave up 7 or 8 years now.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 68 of 82
    sambamacsambamac Posts: 19member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PB View Post


    Certainly. But there is one important point in this affair beyond debate: if you are not routinely working with large files and your hard drive has plenty of room left (not unusual these days), then the benefits from defragmenting are easily defeated by the risk of doing so.



    You are right! The risk and the price is to high! Though in my case it increased the performance. My computer runs now smoothly.



    BTW I work with large Video files on a separate disk, even so I will avoid to do it again.



    Thanks for your opinion.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 69 of 82
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MartiNZ View Post


    Oh no! The wake-from-sleep issues with SMB shares that 10.5.3 fixed are back in 10.5.4!



    I miss not having any issues with OS X . Better go restart.



    Actually, 10.5.3 did not fix this for me anyhow. waking when having been attached to an SMB share was still a problem for me. So I guess I'm not losing anything by "upgrading".
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 70 of 82
    phlakephlake Posts: 91member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sambamac View Post


    You are right! The risk and the price is to high! Though in my case it increased the performance. My computer runs now smoothly.



    BTW I work with large Video files on a separate disk, even so I will avoid to do it again.



    Thanks for your opinion.



    I had to defrag a few months ago, but for an entirely different reason: Boot Camp Assistant refused to make a Windows partition because there was an unmovable file in the way. Defragmenting the drive (by cloning to an external, booting from it, and cloning back) worked wonders.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 71 of 82
    jowie74jowie74 Posts: 540member
    10.5.4 has now screwed things up.



    I've now got back a previous problem I had with iSync and Conflict Resolver. I get about 3,500 conflicts which I cannot resolve, and it eats up over 50% of my processor constantly. Not only that, but my usual fix (resetting sync history in iSync) does not do the trick.



    I can't even disable the sync services. I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to do about it.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 72 of 82
    mcarlingmcarling Posts: 1,106member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jowie74 View Post


    10.5.4 has now screwed things up.



    I've now got back a previous problem I had with iSync and Conflict Resolver. I get about 3,500 conflicts which I cannot resolve, and it eats up over 50% of my processor constantly. Not only that, but my usual fix (resetting sync history in iSync) does not do the trick.



    I can't even disable the sync services. I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to do about it.



    If it worked correctly under 10.5.3, then you should revert to 10.5.3 and apply only the security patches.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 73 of 82
    jowie74jowie74 Posts: 540member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mcarling View Post


    If it worked correctly under 10.5.3, then you should revert to 10.5.3 and apply only the security patches.



    Thanks but I think I'm okay now... I let it do its stuff a few times. It took a while but it seems to have stopped messing up now.



    It's annoying though that there doesn't seem to be a way of switching off Conflict Resolver...
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 74 of 82
    elrothelroth Posts: 1,201member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    On the point updates, I don't remember any UI changes, ever. Maybe there was one or two when the UI had a bug in it somewhere, then fixing it might be a UI change.



    10.5.1 and/or 10.5.2 ( I don't remember which) had several UI changes - particularly regarding the dock (hierarchical menus) and the translucent menu bar.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 75 of 82
    lennylenny Posts: 85member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mcarling View Post


    ..you should revert to 10.5.3 and apply only the security patches.



    How is it accomplished? After the latest update I'm having problems with file sharing between my iMac and Macbook (they're on the same wireless network). In addition to that, after 10.5.4 update I cannot connect my Nokia 6290 to any of my Macs via bluetooth. They just stopped detecting each other...
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 76 of 82
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by lenny View Post


    How is it accomplished?..



    Yeah, great question, right? Wouldn't it be nice to be able to uninstall updates? And have MacOS X catch up to oh, say, Windows XP or earlier. Every time they come out with a new OS X I'm more baffled that they haven't fixed this problem. They seriously botch certain setups with point updates regularly (although perhaps this can never be completely avoided.) A rollback feature would be an acceptable fix...



    Anyhow the answer to the question is: you can't. You have to re-install the entire OS. It's a terrible situation. I'm remembering the hell that 10.3.9 was for me...
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 77 of 82
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,870member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Aquatic View Post


    Yeah, great question, right? Wouldn't it be nice to be able to uninstall updates? And have MacOS X catch up to oh, say, Windows XP or earlier. Every time they come out with a new OS X I'm more baffled that they haven't fixed this problem. They seriously botch certain setups with point updates regularly (although perhaps this can never be completely avoided.) A rollback feature would be an acceptable fix...



    Anyhow the answer to the question is: you can't. You have to re-install the entire OS. It's a terrible situation. I'm remembering the hell that 10.3.9 was for me...



    Obviously you've never heard of Time Machine, Carbon Copy Cloner or Super Duper. I don't know about the other two, but doing an effective rollback with Carbon Copy Cloner takes a matter of minutes.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 78 of 82
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    That's kind of a different scenario and in this case overkill, if I'm thinking right. Time Machine is so simple it's basically a solution, but what if you install the update, immediately notice an application doesn't work or that there is another problem, and then simply want to uninstall the update? This is problem a common scenario, at least when an update causes a problem. Since I have a laptop, like a huge number (majority?) of other Mac users, I only plug in my external drive to update it with Time Machine every few days, sometimes only once every week or two. With your solution, I'd have to find out what else precisely I wanted to keep that had been changed since the update, right? That sounds like a lot of time, if lots of things changed.



    It can't be that hard technically for Apple to add the ability to roll back updates. In fact I think it's well within the scope of a point update and they should do this in the next point update for 10.5 Leopard. Hopefully at least 10.6. I say anyone that is with me on this writes to Apple in Feedback, I'm going to now.



    I don't use 3rd party applications is that they are a hassle. I've used both CCC and Super. I never used them regularly because they were a hassle, and as Steve Jobs pointed out, this is why Time Machine is brilliant. I just plug my drive in, then unplug it when Time Machine is done in a few minutes. Simply brilliant.



    Anyhow, I'm happy to report that 10.5.4 has been a fantastic success on my MacBook Core 2 Duo so far, with my minimal set of 3rd party applications such as Office 2008.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 79 of 82
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,870member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Aquatic View Post


    That's kind of a different scenario and in this case overkill, if I'm thinking right. Time Machine is so simple it's basically a solution, but what if you install the update, immediately notice an application doesn't work or that there is another problem, and then simply want to uninstall the update? This is problem a common scenario, at least when an update causes a problem. Since I have a laptop, like a huge number (majority?) of other Mac users, I only plug in my external drive to update it with Time Machine every few days, sometimes only once every week or two. With your solution, I'd have to find out what else precisely I wanted to keep that had been changed since the update, right? That sounds like a lot of time, if lots of things changed.



    Not a hassle at all. Like I said, it's a matter of minutes.



    Anything can go wrong when doing something major to your system like updating it, so you should always take a backup immediately before applying the update anyway.



    Then, you update, and if something is now not working right, you simply boot from your backup, and clone it back to your built-in drive. You don't have to work out what's changed, CCC does that for you (with its "incremental backup of selected items", it'll just make the necessary changes to the target disk to make it match the source disk; in the case of rolling back an OS update it'll just take a few minutes).



    If the last time you used CCC was when it was at version 2, you really should check out version 3, as it's made some very significant improvements since then.



    Presumably, it shouldn't be too difficult to roll back the system from a Time Machine backup, but I don't know the necessary steps. I guess that it would be nice if Apple could put a "roll back update" button in Time Machine somewhere.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 80 of 82
    jowie74jowie74 Posts: 540member
    I think a good idea, considering Apple is responsible for both updates and Time Machine, would be to bring up an alert before installing an OS update asking "do you want to back up your system now" - which would then automatically run Time Machine (or at least the system part, if you have it checked) before the system update occurred.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.