this update logs on SO much faster than the previous one. i have quite a lot of stuff in my startup items and the previous versions stalled for ages before everything loaded up. now it's less than a minute
I don't know about others who use 3D game type apps, but Second Life performance on my office 24 inch iMac with the GeForce 8800m shot through the roof after this update - I'm talking about a two to three-fold increase in frames per second (20-25 to 50-70 fps) at the same resolution and quality settings. Also, the bug that causes SL to hang seems to be gone, or at least greatly reduced (I've only spent 15 min. in-world since applying the update).
Also, shutdown on my late 2007 Macbook is much snappier.
Let's say three spaces with Safari, iTunes and empty/Finder. Switching from 1 to 2 and back worked ok, 1-2-3-1 brought you back with Finder as frontmost.
Now with X.5.6 the individual app stays in front when you get back. But only if you have the Sys Pref "When switching..." checked.
And only half perfect, have a third app open in 1 and 3 brings it on top in 1 when coming back from 2 via 3.
Oh, well.
Wonder when Apple really is going to get this Space-monster behave.
After updating to 10.5.6 I could no longer connect to my online bank (HSBC). I telephoned them and the first thing they asked was whether I was running Safari on Mac OS X. They said that they and other banks hvae had issues since the update was launched, and suggested I used Firefox. Firefox did actually work
Do tell me how bad permissions will cause things like graphics corruption, surround-sound issues, etc. etc. UNIX permissions are not this mysterious voodoo that trigger all sorts of issues if they're not all 100% dandy. I do UNIX system administration for a living. I know what I'm talking about.
On protected/virtual memory ...
I think what I'm talking about may be a bit out of your league of knowledge/understanding, and that's fine -- I'll accept that.
What I won't accept is someone who has no idea what they're talking about telling me that I'm wrong. I'll stand by this: Userland processes are forbidden from directly accessing system memory. Userland processes' memory addresses in a modern, protected-memory OS like OS X or Windows NT are virtualized, and then translated to physical addresses by the CPU and its TLB. Google this.
Do tell me how bad permissions will cause things like graphics corruption, surround-sound issues, etc. etc. UNIX permissions are not this mysterious voodoo that trigger all sorts of issues if they're not all 100% dandy. I do UNIX system administration for a living. I know what I'm talking about.
On protected/virtual memory ...
I think what I'm talking about may be a bit out of your league of knowledge/understanding, and that's fine -- I'll accept that.
What I won't accept is someone who has no idea what they're talking about telling me that I'm wrong. I'll stand by this: Userland processes are forbidden from directly accessing system memory. Userland processes' memory addresses in a modern, protected-memory OS like OS X or Windows NT are virtualized, and then translated to physical addresses by the CPU and its TLB. Google this.
TomQ:
I am afraid you may be wasting your time here as you are talking to people that place little or no value at all on actual experience. What seems to be taken as gospel is what is solely found by Googling any given subject. Be careful with your suggestion. The application of deductive reasoning, scientific method, skepticism or even plain old common sense on what is found on the Internet seems to be lost here.
If by chance you read most of this thread, you may have noticed my little dispute with melgross over whether data on a hard disk can be "flipped" or decay by merely sitting on a shelf or having been exposed to 'cosmic rays.' My 20+ years of experience to the contrary was rapidly dismissed and it was suggested that I am a lazy fool that wants to look ridiculous for not offering a Googled response. In the meantime, I have casually queried the administrators of data centers of the trading firms I deal with worldwide about this and was laughed at every time for merely suggesting such utter nonsense. I explained to them why I had to ask.
They did tell me something interesting, though. Regardless of how failsafe any data storage medium is claimed to be, should that really alter your redundancy planning? Backups should be regularly done regardless whether the drive has a MTBF of 1 million hours or 1000 hours.
So, the whole argument was really moot, wasn't it?
since the update my computer seems to run slower. programs such as firefox crashes a lot and "NOT RESPONDING". Although I force quit, it still doesn't quit.
I have to turn off my machine to remedy it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OptionTrader
TomQ:
I am afraid you may be wasting your time here as you are talking to people that place little or no value at all on actual experience. What seems to be taken as gospel is what is solely found by Googling any given subject. Be careful with your suggestion. The application of deductive reasoning, scientific method, skepticism or even plain old common sense on what is found on the Internet seems to be lost here.
If by chance you read most of this thread, you may have noticed my little dispute with melgross over whether data on a hard disk can be "flipped" or decay by merely sitting on a shelf or having been exposed to 'cosmic rays.' My 20+ years of experience to the contrary was rapidly dismissed and it was suggested that I am a lazy fool that wants to look ridiculous for not offering a Googled response. In the meantime, I have casually queried the administrators of data centers of the trading firms I deal with worldwide about this and was laughed at every time for merely suggesting such utter nonsense. I explained to them why I had to ask.
They did tell me something interesting, though. Regardless of how failsafe any data storage medium is claimed to be, should that really alter your redundancy planning? Backups should be regularly done regardless whether the drive has a MTBF of 1 million hours or 1000 hours.
So, the whole argument was really moot, wasn't it?
After updating to 10.5.6 I could no longer connect to my online bank (HSBC). I telephoned them and the first thing they asked was whether I was running Safari on Mac OS X. They said that they and other banks hvae had issues since the update was launched, and suggested I used Firefox. Firefox did actually work
Hmm... I've had problems with two sites.
"mail.google.com" (after sign-in), and "www.har.com" (a real estate site) both hang EVERY time I access them. Spinning beachball and force-quit. It happens in both Safari and Firefox. worked fine PRIOR to 10.5.6
Seems like an odd thing to "break" during an update... but what do I know.
Comments
Also, shutdown on my late 2007 Macbook is much snappier.
-Switchy McSwitcher
Guys this one is easy:
Turn off "Dock Objects" in the MobileMe sync pane. That fixes it.
Cheers
(That'll teach me to post a reply before I've read the whole thread -- the answer was already posted!)
Amorya
Let's say three spaces with Safari, iTunes and empty/Finder. Switching from 1 to 2 and back worked ok, 1-2-3-1 brought you back with Finder as frontmost.
Now with X.5.6 the individual app stays in front when you get back. But only if you have the Sys Pref "When switching..." checked.
And only half perfect, have a third app open in 1 and 3 brings it on top in 1 when coming back from 2 via 3.
Oh, well.
Wonder when Apple really is going to get this Space-monster behave.
On UNIX permissions ...
Do tell me how bad permissions will cause things like graphics corruption, surround-sound issues, etc. etc. UNIX permissions are not this mysterious voodoo that trigger all sorts of issues if they're not all 100% dandy. I do UNIX system administration for a living. I know what I'm talking about.
On protected/virtual memory ...
I think what I'm talking about may be a bit out of your league of knowledge/understanding, and that's fine -- I'll accept that.
What I won't accept is someone who has no idea what they're talking about telling me that I'm wrong. I'll stand by this: Userland processes are forbidden from directly accessing system memory. Userland processes' memory addresses in a modern, protected-memory OS like OS X or Windows NT are virtualized, and then translated to physical addresses by the CPU and its TLB. Google this.
Melgross:
On UNIX permissions ...
Do tell me how bad permissions will cause things like graphics corruption, surround-sound issues, etc. etc. UNIX permissions are not this mysterious voodoo that trigger all sorts of issues if they're not all 100% dandy. I do UNIX system administration for a living. I know what I'm talking about.
On protected/virtual memory ...
I think what I'm talking about may be a bit out of your league of knowledge/understanding, and that's fine -- I'll accept that.
What I won't accept is someone who has no idea what they're talking about telling me that I'm wrong. I'll stand by this: Userland processes are forbidden from directly accessing system memory. Userland processes' memory addresses in a modern, protected-memory OS like OS X or Windows NT are virtualized, and then translated to physical addresses by the CPU and its TLB. Google this.
TomQ:
I am afraid you may be wasting your time here as you are talking to people that place little or no value at all on actual experience. What seems to be taken as gospel is what is solely found by Googling any given subject. Be careful with your suggestion. The application of deductive reasoning, scientific method, skepticism or even plain old common sense on what is found on the Internet seems to be lost here.
If by chance you read most of this thread, you may have noticed my little dispute with melgross over whether data on a hard disk can be "flipped" or decay by merely sitting on a shelf or having been exposed to 'cosmic rays.' My 20+ years of experience to the contrary was rapidly dismissed and it was suggested that I am a lazy fool that wants to look ridiculous for not offering a Googled response. In the meantime, I have casually queried the administrators of data centers of the trading firms I deal with worldwide about this and was laughed at every time for merely suggesting such utter nonsense. I explained to them why I had to ask.
They did tell me something interesting, though. Regardless of how failsafe any data storage medium is claimed to be, should that really alter your redundancy planning? Backups should be regularly done regardless whether the drive has a MTBF of 1 million hours or 1000 hours.
So, the whole argument was really moot, wasn't it?
Enjoy your Holidays.
I have to turn off my machine to remedy it.
TomQ:
I am afraid you may be wasting your time here as you are talking to people that place little or no value at all on actual experience. What seems to be taken as gospel is what is solely found by Googling any given subject. Be careful with your suggestion. The application of deductive reasoning, scientific method, skepticism or even plain old common sense on what is found on the Internet seems to be lost here.
If by chance you read most of this thread, you may have noticed my little dispute with melgross over whether data on a hard disk can be "flipped" or decay by merely sitting on a shelf or having been exposed to 'cosmic rays.' My 20+ years of experience to the contrary was rapidly dismissed and it was suggested that I am a lazy fool that wants to look ridiculous for not offering a Googled response. In the meantime, I have casually queried the administrators of data centers of the trading firms I deal with worldwide about this and was laughed at every time for merely suggesting such utter nonsense. I explained to them why I had to ask.
They did tell me something interesting, though. Regardless of how failsafe any data storage medium is claimed to be, should that really alter your redundancy planning? Backups should be regularly done regardless whether the drive has a MTBF of 1 million hours or 1000 hours.
So, the whole argument was really moot, wasn't it?
Enjoy your Holidays.
After updating to 10.5.6 I could no longer connect to my online bank (HSBC). I telephoned them and the first thing they asked was whether I was running Safari on Mac OS X. They said that they and other banks hvae had issues since the update was launched, and suggested I used Firefox. Firefox did actually work
Hmm... I've had problems with two sites.
"mail.google.com" (after sign-in), and "www.har.com" (a real estate site) both hang EVERY time I access them. Spinning beachball and force-quit. It happens in both Safari and Firefox. worked fine PRIOR to 10.5.6
Seems like an odd thing to "break" during an update... but what do I know.
What happened to full Hybrid SLI support? I would love if my MBP would just switch between the two GFX cards when the adapter is plugged in.
Can anybody answer this question?
What happened to full Hybrid SLI support? I would love if my MBP would just switch between the two GFX cards when the adapter is plugged in.
There have been some hints about some improvements about that coming in Snow Leopard.
There have been some hints about some improvements about that coming in Snow Leopard.
Cheers. I hope that's the case. It's one of the few complaints I have about my MBP.