10.6.2 update
Simon Dobbs
The 10.6.2 Update is recommended for all users running Mac OS X Snow Leopard
and includes general operating system fixes that enhance the stability,
compatibility, and security of your Mac, including fixes for:
ￜ an issue that might cause your system to logout unexpectedly
ￜ a graphics distortion in Safari Top Sites
ￜ Spotlight search results not showing Exchange contacts
ￜ a problem that prevented authenticating as an administrative user
ￜ issues when using NTFS and WebDAV file servers
ￜ the reliability of menu extras
ￜ an issue with the 4-finger swipe gesture
ￜ an issue that causes Mail to quit unexpectedly when setting up an Exchange
server
ￜ Address Book becoming unresponsive when editing
ￜ a problem adding images to contacts in Address Book
ￜ an issue that prevented opening files downloaded from the Internet
ￜ Safari plug-in reliability
ￜ general reliability improvements for iWork, iLife, Aperture, Final Cut
Studio, MobileMe, and iDisk
ￜ an issue that caused data to be deleted when using a guest account
For detailed information on this update, please visit this website:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3874.
For information on the security content of this update, please visit:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1222.
Rowland McDonnell
> FOR YOU, ON SOFTWARE UPDATE, NOW
>
> The 10.6.2 Update
You can download either the big combo updater, or the ever so much
smaller incremental updater:
[snip]
<http://support.apple.com/kb/DL959> 10.6.2 Update Combo; Size: 479MB
<http://support.apple.com/kb/DL958> 10.6.2 Update; File Size: 473MB
Rowland.
--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland....@dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
Simon Dobbs
(in article
<1j8xom6.3g0nr8xdbdwcN%real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid>):
> Simon Dobbs <simon...@froglet.net> wrote:
>
>> FOR YOU, ON SOFTWARE UPDATE, NOW
>>
>> The 10.6.2 Update
>
> You can download either the big combo updater, or the ever so much
> smaller incremental updater:
>
> [snip]
>
> <http://support.apple.com/kb/DL959> 10.6.2 Update Combo; Size: 479MB
>
> <http://support.apple.com/kb/DL958> 10.6.2 Update; File Size: 473MB
>
> Rowland.
>
>
Sure- I never know which is best!
Jochem Huhmann
> FOR YOU, ON SOFTWARE UPDATE, NOW
>
> The 10.6.2 Update is recommended for all users running Mac OS X Snow Leopard
> and includes general operating system fixes that enhance the stability,
> compatibility, and security of your Mac, including fixes for:
Well, time to upgrade to SL now!
Jochem
--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Andy Hewitt
> Simon Dobbs <simon...@froglet.net> wrote:
>
> > FOR YOU, ON SOFTWARE UPDATE, NOW
> >
> > The 10.6.2 Update
>
> You can download either the big combo updater, or the ever so much
> smaller incremental updater:
>
> [snip]
>
> <http://support.apple.com/kb/DL959> 10.6.2 Update Combo; Size: 479MB
>
> <http://support.apple.com/kb/DL958> 10.6.2 Update; File Size: 473MB
>
> Rowland.
I just did mine with the incremental updater via Software Update, and it
was only 157MB.
It installed OK, and has rebooted OK too. So far so good.
--
Andy Hewitt
<http://web.me.com/andrewhewitt1/>
Chris Ridd
> I just did mine with the incremental updater via Software Update, and it
> was only 157MB.
Yes, here too.
> It installed OK, and has rebooted OK too. So far so good.
The only obvious visible sign of the update is that the Mouse
preference pane icon now looks like a Magic Mouse.
--
Chris
Andy Hewitt
Not much else here too - except I've noticed I now get a 'connected'
messaged when I turn on my wireless keyboard.
Gavin
Growl Mail is now broken, as is Letterbox for Mail.app!
--
Gavin.  ACSP 10.5
http://www.stoof.co.uk
http://www.twitter.com/gavin_wilby
Stewart Smith
> On 2009-11-09 23:45:45 +0000, thewil...@me.com (Andy Hewitt) said:
>
>> I just did mine with the incremental updater via Software Update, and it
>> was only 157MB.
>
> Yes, here too.
>
On my 20" iMac it was 499.9MB, and it was the same size on my alu
macbook. I wonder why there's so much difference?
>> It installed OK, and has rebooted OK too. So far so good.
>
> The only obvious visible sign of the update is that the Mouse preference
> pane icon now looks like a Magic Mouse.
Installing the update to handle the Magic Mouse did the same thing.
Stewart
Chris Ridd
> On 2009-11-10 08:19:28 +0000, thewil...@me.com (Andy Hewitt) said:
>
>> Chris Ridd <chri...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-11-09 23:45:45 +0000, thewil...@me.com (Andy Hewitt) said:
>>>
>>>> I just did mine with the incremental updater via Software Update, and it
>>>> was only 157MB.
>>>
>>> Yes, here too.
>>>
>>>> It installed OK, and has rebooted OK too. So far so good.
>>>
>>> The only obvious visible sign of the update is that the Mouse
>>> preference pane icon now looks like a Magic Mouse.
>>
>> Not much else here too - except I've noticed I now get a 'connected'
>> messaged when I turn on my wireless keyboard.
>
> Growl Mail is now broken, as is Letterbox for Mail.app!
When Mail gets updated, typically the setting to allow third-party
plugins also gets disabled. (Safety, I guess.) Try enabling it.
--
Chris
David Pitt
[snip]
> Growl Mail is now broken, as is Letterbox for Mail.app!
Letterbox beta 5, developed for 10.6.2, is working here with 10.6.2.
http://harnly.net/software/letterbox/
Beta 4, previously installed, was indeed kicked out by 10.6.2.
--
David Pitt
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Simon Dobbs <simon...@froglet.net> wrote:
> >
> > > FOR YOU, ON SOFTWARE UPDATE, NOW
> > >
> > > The 10.6.2 Update
> >
> > You can download either the big combo updater, or the ever so much
> > smaller incremental updater:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > <http://support.apple.com/kb/DL959> 10.6.2 Update Combo; Size: 479MB
> >
> > <http://support.apple.com/kb/DL958> 10.6.2 Update; File Size: 473MB
> >
> > Rowland.
>
> I just did mine with the incremental updater via Software Update, and it
> was only 157MB.
Curious - I reported the size I saw reported on the Web page concerned.
> It installed OK, and has rebooted OK too. So far so good.
I never trust the incremental updaters - or Software Update itself.
Combo updaters only, downloaded via a Web browser. Then stashed on
disc.
Rowland McDonnell
> Simon Dobbs <simon...@froglet.net> writes:
>
> > FOR YOU, ON SOFTWARE UPDATE, NOW
> >
> > The 10.6.2 Update is recommended for all users running Mac OS X Snow Leopard
> > and includes general operating system fixes that enhance the stability,
> > compatibility, and security of your Mac, including fixes for:
>
> Well, time to upgrade to SL now!
Maybe... Keep an eye on Finder CPU usage. 10.6.1 showed a tendency
here for the Finder to start using far too much CPU for no apparent
reason. The short-term fix is to trash Finder prefs and restart the
Finder.
Dunno if 10.6.2 has fixed the problem. Some suggest it's related to
`Show all sizes' being `on'.
Andy Hewitt
> Chris Ridd wrote:
> > On 2009-11-09 23:45:45 +0000, thewil...@me.com (Andy Hewitt) said:
> >
> >> I just did mine with the incremental updater via Software Update, and it
> >> was only 157MB.
> >
> > Yes, here too.
> >
>
> On my 20" iMac it was 499.9MB, and it was the same size on my alu
> macbook. I wonder why there's so much difference?
Did you update from 10.6.0 or 10.6.1?
(It sounds like you never installed the 10.6.1 update).
Andy Hewitt
Yes, I got that message, and completely forgotten I'd installed it. All
it did was remind to remove it as I didn't like the widescreen view.
Andy Hewitt
> Andy Hewitt <thewil...@me.com> wrote:
>
> > Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
[..]
> > I just did mine with the incremental updater via Software Update, and it
> > was only 157MB.
>
> Curious - I reported the size I saw reported on the Web page concerned.
There is a standalone incremetal updater too, but it won't be model
specific, so I guess it'll have more stuff in it.
> > It installed OK, and has rebooted OK too. So far so good.
>
> I never trust the incremental updaters - or Software Update itself.
> Combo updaters only, downloaded via a Web browser. Then stashed on
> disc.
I was in that camp too, but I've found the recent updates (the last
couple on 10.5, and both on 10.6) have worked OK, and appear to have
fewer complaints of failures.
You can always apply the Combo as well if needed.
Peter Ceresole
> I never trust the incremental updaters - or Software Update itself.
> Combo updaters only, downloaded via a Web browser. Then stashed on
> disc.
From 10.2.0 onwards (to 10.5.8 so far), I've *always* used the updates
via Software Update, and have never had a moment's trouble.
--
Peter
Stewart Smith
Both machines updated from 10.6.1
Stewart
Andy Hewitt
David Empson
Several people in comp.sys.mac.system are reporting that some computers
which were already running 10.6.1 got a 499 MB update instead of a 157
MB update via Software Update.
It isn't clear yet why this happened. I'm speculating that it might only
be computers which had Snow Leopard installed from the "Upgrade DVD" or
"CPU Drop-in DVD", rather than the retail DVD or supplied with Snow
Leopard already installed.
The oddity is that the Combo update is a fair amount smaller - 479 MB.
I can't see an obvious pattern. It is some Unibody MacBooks and MacBook
Pros, and some iMacs.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
Andy Hewitt
> Andy Hewitt <thewil...@me.com> wrote:
[..]
> >
> > Did you update from 10.6.0 or 10.6.1?
> >
> > (It sounds like you never installed the 10.6.1 update).
>
> Several people in comp.sys.mac.system are reporting that some computers
> which were already running 10.6.1 got a 499 MB update instead of a 157
> MB update via Software Update.
>
> It isn't clear yet why this happened. I'm speculating that it might only
> be computers which had Snow Leopard installed from the "Upgrade DVD" or
> "CPU Drop-in DVD", rather than the retail DVD or supplied with Snow
> Leopard already installed.
>
> The oddity is that the Combo update is a fair amount smaller - 479 MB.
>
> I can't see an obvious pattern. It is some Unibody MacBooks and MacBook
> Pros, and some iMacs.
Yes, a strange one indeed. Mine is an Upgrade DVD version of Snow
Leopard on a MacBook 2007.
Gavin
157meg download for me.
Clean install of SL, on a 1st gen 13" Unibody MacBook.
David Empson
> On 2009-11-10 20:18:14 +0000, thewil...@me.com (Andy Hewitt) said:
>
> > David Empson <dem...@actrix.gen.nz> wrote:
> >
> >> Andy Hewitt <thewil...@me.com> wrote:
> > [..]
> >>>
> >>> Did you update from 10.6.0 or 10.6.1?
> >>>
> >>> (It sounds like you never installed the 10.6.1 update).
> >>
> >> Several people in comp.sys.mac.system are reporting that some computers
> >> which were already running 10.6.1 got a 499 MB update instead of a 157
> >> MB update via Software Update.
> >>
> >> It isn't clear yet why this happened. I'm speculating that it might only
> >> be computers which had Snow Leopard installed from the "Upgrade DVD" or
> >> "CPU Drop-in DVD", rather than the retail DVD or supplied with Snow
> >> Leopard already installed.
> >>
> >> The oddity is that the Combo update is a fair amount smaller - 479 MB.
> >>
> >> I can't see an obvious pattern. It is some Unibody MacBooks and MacBook
> >> Pros, and some iMacs.
> >
> > Yes, a strange one indeed. Mine is an Upgrade DVD version of Snow
> > Leopard on a MacBook 2007.
A 2007 MacBook wouldn't have been eligible to get the "Upgrade DVD"
(local equivalent of US$9.95 via the Mac OS X up-to-date programme, only
for Macs purchased new since June 2009).
Do you mean the standard retail edition of Snow Leopard (local
equivalent of US$29.95)? That DVD is labelled "Install DVD" and it is
not the same thing as the "Upgrade DVD".
Or do you mean that you got the Upgrade DVD for another computer and
then also used it on an older MacBook?
I installed Snow Leopard using the "Install DVD" (on top of Leopard) and
Software Update offered me a 157.7 MB update for 10.6.2.
> 157meg download for me.
>
> Clean install of SL, on a 1st gen 13" Unibody MacBook.
That's consistent with my theory (so far).
I expect any use of the "Install DVD" to install on a bare machine or on
top of either Leopard or Tiger will result in a full installation of
Snow Leopard which boots any supported machine. Those machines will be
offered a 157 MB update.
Recently purchased models which were bought new with Snow Leopard
preinstalled and are using the same build as the "Install DVD" (e.g. the
late 2009 Mac Mini) should also get the 157 MB update.
Late 2009 iMacs and MacBook had a custom build of Snow Leopard
preinstalled (either 10.6.1 or 10.6), so they will probably get a
different 10.6.2 update.
Any models purchased since June which came with Leopard preinstalled and
which have been upgraded to Snow Leopard using the "Upgrade DVD" or "CPU
Drop-in DVD" are the ones that I suspect are being offered the 499 MB
update.
I'd still like to collect more details about the various Snow Leopard
install/upgrade DVDs, as I've only seen the standard retail ones so far.
In particular:
1. If anyone has the Snow Leopard edition of the Mac Box Set, can you
confirm that the Snow Leopard DVD is labelled "Install DVD" and "Version
10.6", and its part number is 2Z691-6428-A? (If so, it is identical to
the retail edition.)
2. If anyone has a Snow Leopard DVD labelled "Upgrade DVD" or "CPU
Drop-in DVD" (due to buying a new Mac since June), I'd like to know what
its part number is, and which computer it came with/for. I don't know
yet whether there are multiple editions of each DVD, or if Apple used a
different part number from the retail edition.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
James Jolley
> Jochem Huhmann <j...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>> Simon Dobbs <simon...@froglet.net> writes:
>>
>>> FOR YOU, ON SOFTWARE UPDATE, NOW
>>>
>>> The 10.6.2 Update is recommended for all users running Mac OS X Snow Leopard
>>> and includes general operating system fixes that enhance the stability,
>>> compatibility, and security of your Mac, including fixes for:
>>
>> Well, time to upgrade to SL now!
>
> Maybe... Keep an eye on Finder CPU usage. 10.6.1 showed a tendency
> here for the Finder to start using far too much CPU for no apparent
> reason. The short-term fix is to trash Finder prefs and restart the
> Finder.
>
> Dunno if 10.6.2 has fixed the problem. Some suggest it's related to
> `Show all sizes' being `on'.
>
> Rowland.
I can't say I noticed the CPU usage for finder going up, but I tend to
only use the finder in either icon or list much of the time. I was
actively working with 10.6.2 for the VO support, this is much better in
this version.
Flavio Matani
But then the laws of physics in Ceresoleworld are ever so slightly
different -some quantum effect, shurely:)
--
flavio matani
guitar tuition
http://www.flaviomatani.co.uk
http://fflavio.com
Flavio Matani
> FOR YOU, ON SOFTWARE UPDATE, NOW
>
> The 10.6.2 Update is recommended for all users running Mac OS X Snow Leopard
> and includes general operating system fixes that enhance the stability,
> compatibility, and security of your Mac, including fixes for:
<long list of stuff>
Waiting a couple of days, myself, to see what breaks, etc.
This must mean, shurely, that I'm getting old...
Peter Ceresole
> But then the laws of physics in Ceresoleworld are ever so slightly
> different -some quantum effect, shurely:)
More like a shift in probability theory.
In my favour of course.
--
Peter
Andy Hewitt
> Gavin <gwilby...@stoof.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 2009-11-10 20:18:14 +0000, thewil...@me.com (Andy Hewitt) said:
[..]
> > > Yes, a strange one indeed. Mine is an Upgrade DVD version of Snow
> > > Leopard on a MacBook 2007.
>
> A 2007 MacBook wouldn't have been eligible to get the "Upgrade DVD"
> (local equivalent of US$9.95 via the Mac OS X up-to-date programme, only
> for Macs purchased new since June 2009).
Correct.
> Do you mean the standard retail edition of Snow Leopard (local
> equivalent of US$29.95)? That DVD is labelled "Install DVD" and it is
> not the same thing as the "Upgrade DVD".
Not sure why you put the 'local equivalent' bit, mine was 'locally' �25.
But yes, it is actually marked as '10.6 Retail', and 'Install DVD'.
I was probably confusing it with all the talk, at the time, of 10.6
being an 'upgrade' on 10.5 - probably because of the pricing policy, and
initially it wasn't clear if the first SL discs were to be an upgrade or
full install disc.
> Or do you mean that you got the Upgrade DVD for another computer and
> then also used it on an older MacBook?
No, that doesn't work.
> I installed Snow Leopard using the "Install DVD" (on top of Leopard) and
> Software Update offered me a 157.7 MB update for 10.6.2.
Yes, same here.
Bruce Horrocks
> Several people in comp.sys.mac.system are reporting that some computers
> which were already running 10.6.1 got a 499 MB update instead of a 157
> MB update via Software Update.
Latest MacBook Pro which came with SL. Update from 10.6.1 to 10.6.2 was
157MB.
The machine has iLife installed - maybe it is that?
Regards,
--
Bruce Horrocks
Surrey
England
(bruce at scorecrow dot com)
David Empson
> David Empson wrote:
> > Several people in comp.sys.mac.system are reporting that some computers
> > which were already running 10.6.1 got a 499 MB update instead of a 157
> > MB update via Software Update.
>
> Latest MacBook Pro which came with SL. Update from 10.6.1 to 10.6.2 was
> 157MB.
If Snow Leoaprd was preinstalled when the computer was supplied from
Apple, that is consistent with my theory, as you would have had the same
build of 10.6 as the retail Snow Leopard.
Only newly released models since Snow Leopard with hardware changes have
a custom build of Snow Leopard, and so far that is just the late 2009
iMacs and MacBook.
The Late 2009 Mac Mini was the same hardware design as the Early 2009
model (apart from component updates) so it works with retail Snow
Leopard and can even be downgraded to 10.5.8.
> The machine has iLife installed - maybe it is that?
iLife and Mac OS X are separate products, which are both preinstalled on
new Macs. They are updated independently (and also installed
independently, except when using the DVD that came with a Mac to
reinstall everything).
The only part of iLife which might included in Mac OS X updates is
"iLife Support" component, which is relatively small. Apple tends to
update that separately, and I can't see either part of it in the 10.6.2
combo update.
The full installer for iLife is several gigabytes (mainly due to
Garageband and iDVD templates), so it wouldn't account for a 340 MB
difference in size.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
Gavin
> The full installer for iLife is several gigabytes (mainly due to
> Garageband and iDVD templates), so it wouldn't account for a 340 MB
> difference in size.
This is an iLife and iWork machine also, so that theory pans out, and
these updates tend to come out in their own packages.
Andy Hewitt
> On 2009-11-11 03:43:18 +0000, dem...@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) said:
>
> > The full installer for iLife is several gigabytes (mainly due to
> > Garageband and iDVD templates), so it wouldn't account for a 340 MB
> > difference in size.
>
> This is an iLife and iWork machine also, so that theory pans out, and
> these updates tend to come out in their own packages.
I'm not sure it is it, but mine is also an iLife/iWork machine (with the
157MB update)
Stewart Smith
>
> It isn't clear yet why this happened. I'm speculating that it might only
> be computers which had Snow Leopard installed from the "Upgrade DVD" or
> "CPU Drop-in DVD", rather than the retail DVD or supplied with Snow
> Leopard already installed.
I can't think that's the case as both my machines had SL installed from
a retail disc (family pack before anyone complains...) I'll only
complain about the size if it puts me over my BT broadband quota again
this month and I get charged for it.
Stewart
David Empson
OK, scratch that theory then.
Some other possible explanations:
1. If something like a security update hadn't been installed, but I
can't see any post-10.6.1 updates that fit the bill.
2. The method used to install the 10.6.1 update.
I used the manually downloaded (75MB) update rather than Software Update
to install 10.6.1. (Software Update was offering something much
smaller.)
I wonder if the machines which updated to 10.5.1 via Software Update are
now being offered the big version of the 10.5.2 update?
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
John Swinbank
Chris Ridd <chri...@mac.com> wrote:
> > Growl Mail is now broken, as is Letterbox for Mail.app!
>
> When Mail gets updated, typically the setting to allow third-party
> plugins also gets disabled. (Safety, I guess.) Try enabling it.
Actually, Mail plugins now (ie, as of Snow Leopard) have to declare the
specific versions of Mail they're compatible with. See
<http://growl.info/documentation/faq.php#growlmail-and-snow-leopard> for
more.
If you're confident that GrowlMail is compatible with the latest release
of Mail.app (and it works for me, but that's no guarantee of anything),
you can edit GrowlMail.mailblundle/Contents/Info.plist and ensure the
following strings are added to the SupportedPluginCompatibilityUUIDs
block:
2F0CF6F9-35BA-4812-9CB2-155C0FDB9B0F
0CB5F2A0-A173-4809-86E3-9317261F1745
Cheers,
John
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Andy Hewitt <thewil...@me.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
> [..]
> > > I just did mine with the incremental updater via Software Update, and it
> > > was only 157MB.
> >
> > Curious - I reported the size I saw reported on the Web page concerned.
>
> There is a standalone incremetal updater too, but it won't be model
> specific, so I guess it'll have more stuff in it.
Yes, that's right, that is the updater I was talking about. Do try to
keep up.
From my original post in this thread:
<http://support.apple.com/kb/DL959> 10.6.2 Update Combo; Size: 479MB
AND ALSO THE NON-COMBO UPDATER, HERE:
=====================================
<http://support.apple.com/kb/DL958> 10.6.2 Update; File Size: 473MB
> > > It installed OK, and has rebooted OK too. So far so good.
> >
> > I never trust the incremental updaters - or Software Update itself.
> > Combo updaters only, downloaded via a Web browser. Then stashed on
> > disc.
>
> I was in that camp too, but I've found the recent updates (the last
> couple on 10.5, and both on 10.6) have worked OK, and appear to have
> fewer complaints of failures.
/Fewer/ complaints of failures using the non-combo updates? That's a
reversal of normal behaviour, innit?
> You can always apply the Combo as well if needed.
As well? Really? Curious.
Rowland McDonnell
I expect that's how it worked for you, Peter.
Since you're famous for having no trouble where trouble is common-place
for many folk, a good first guess would be that your experience is an
indicator that I need to carry on using the combo updater to avoid
trouble.
I've had trouble with the non-combo updaters, which I did try under 10.2
and 10.3 and 10.4. They caused me trouble under three OS versions which
you say they worked perfectly with - the usual situation.
Simon Dobbs
(in article <1j8zm1t.18yz3ac1q97vjfN%flavio_matani...@mac.com>):
> Simon Dobbs <simon...@froglet.net> wrote:
>
>> FOR YOU, ON SOFTWARE UPDATE, NOW
>>
>> The 10.6.2 Update is recommended for all users running Mac OS X Snow Leopard
>> and includes general operating system fixes that enhance the stability,
>> compatibility, and security of your Mac, including fixes for:
> <long list of stuff>
>
> Waiting a couple of days, myself, to see what breaks, etc.
> This must mean, shurely, that I'm getting old...
>
>
>
and perhaps...wise...
Rowland McDonnell
> real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) said:
>
> > Jochem Huhmann <j...@gmx.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Simon Dobbs <simon...@froglet.net> writes:
> >>
> >>> FOR YOU, ON SOFTWARE UPDATE, NOW
> >>>
> >>> The 10.6.2 Update is recommended for all users running Mac OS X Snow
> >>> Leopard and includes general operating system fixes that enhance the
> >>> stability, compatibility, and security of your Mac, including fixes
> >>> for:
> >>
> >> Well, time to upgrade to SL now!
> >
> > Maybe... Keep an eye on Finder CPU usage. 10.6.1 showed a tendency
> > here for the Finder to start using far too much CPU for no apparent
> > reason. The short-term fix is to trash Finder prefs and restart the
> > Finder.
> >
> > Dunno if 10.6.2 has fixed the problem. Some suggest it's related to
> > `Show all sizes' being `on'.
> >
> > Rowland.
>
> I can't say I noticed the CPU usage for finder going up, but I tend to
> only use the finder in either icon or list much of the time.
There's a bug that sometimes bites. I use the Finder in icon and list
view almost exclusively. This coverflow lark doesn't work reliably,
I've found.
<shrug> I just fire up Activity Monitor once in a while and have a look
at Finder CPU usage.
> I was
> actively working with 10.6.2 for the VO support, this is much better in
> this version.
Not sure what you mean by that.
Roger Merriman
I have had one problem that was with the old powerbook which fell over
during a update.
but since thats the only one in what over ten years of using macs thats
not bad.
I do back up more often than i used to though!
and yes it will be just a upgrade.
roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
Peter Ceresole
> > From 10.2.0 onwards (to 10.5.8 so far), I've *always* used the updates
> > via Software Update, and have never had a moment's trouble.
>
> I expect that's how it worked for you, Peter.
Yes it did. And I never did anything special. All my Macs have been
vanilla (except for the possible exception of using Keyboard Maestro)
and I just selected the items in Software Update, and clicked the go
button.
--
Peter
Peter Ceresole
> I use the Finder in icon and list
> view almost exclusively. This coverflow lark doesn't work reliably,
> I've found.
I use list and (very occasionally) icon view, but never coverflow. When
I've tried it, out of curiosity, it's always worked okay, but it seems
to me to be a very awkward way to view folders.
--
Peter
James Dore
It is, and there are numerous file types it can't understand so you get
either a generic document icon, or no icon at all.
It is ok for folders of images, but I find QuickLook from my normal view
(press space and then scroll thru the list with the down arrow) easier.
Cheers,
--
James Dore
New College IT Officer
james.dore@new / it-support@new
Rowland McDonnell
I expect so. I've no idea what a `vanilla' Mac might be. And I do know
that you somehow fail to notice or care about computer problems that bug
me.
I've had /occasional/ trouble with the non-combo updaters in the past,
giving me an unreliable Mac once in a while (ISTR that the model
specific installers for 10.2 were particularly problematic, but that was
a long time ago). My Macs are neither vanilla nor strawberry.
So I don't use the incremental updaters. I always download the combo
updater. The potential future advantage of that is that I'll have an
updater that's not model specific, which means that when Apple stops
providing support for 10.6, I'll still have what's needed software-wise
for anything running 10.6, which is handy. (or so I reckon, based on
what I've done with ancient Macs).
Peter Ceresole
> I've no idea what a `vanilla' Mac might be.
Unmodified. Standard. Simple. It's an extremely common expression.
--
Peter
J.J. O'Shit
True, but RoWlaNd doesn't get out /much/.
Rowland McDonnell
[1]
So you've never added any software to that Mac, eh?
Well, well, well - what an unusual Macintosh user you are.
Rowland.
[1] It's also one that's used differently by different people - since
it's a common but - crucially - ill-defined expression, your sneering
disdain at my request for an explanation is extremely ill-mannered of
you.
But I don't really expect anything but supercilous sneering from you,
Peter - rudeness like that is your stock in trade.
Of course that's why you reply to me, isn't it, Peter? You enjoy making
snidely derogatory remarks which you know are bullshit - you do it
because you take pleasure from the disturbances such shittiness causes.
Of course I despise you and all like you.
Peter Ceresole
> So you've never added any software to that Mac, eh?
Only normal applications like Firefox. The only application I have added
that might operate at the system level, and that might affect the
stability of the Mac is Keyboard Maestro- which is why I mentioned it.
Clearly we use our Macs in different ways.
--
Peter
John Hill
> Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > I've no idea what a `vanilla' Mac might be.
> >
> > Unmodified. Standard. Simple. It's an extremely common expression.
>
> [1]
>
> So you've never added any software to that Mac, eh?
>
> Well, well, well - what an unusual Macintosh user you are.
>
> Rowland.
>
> [1] It's also one that's used differently by different people - since
> it's a common but - crucially - ill-defined expression, your sneering
> disdain at my request for an explanation is extremely ill-mannered of
> you.
>
> But I don't really expect anything but supercilous sneering from you,
> Peter - rudeness like that is your stock in trade.
>
> Of course that's why you reply to me, isn't it, Peter? You enjoy making
> snidely derogatory remarks which you know are bullshit - you do it
> because you take pleasure from the disturbances such shittiness causes.
>
> Of course I despise you and all like you.
I think that I probably have something approaching a vanilla Mac in that
I don't go in much for haxies of one kind or another. There ARE a few
things that appear in System Preferences - Default Folder, Flip4Mac,
for example - but nothing that produces fancy extra docks, folder
manipulators, search facilities etc. So there's not all that much that
an upgrade could break. I hope :-)
John.
--
Please reply to john at yclept dot wanadoo dot co dot uk.
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
>
> > So you've never added any software to that Mac, eh?
>
> Only normal applications like Firefox.
`Normal' as in `what Peter C. uses', yes?
Firefox uses Java - security risks there, and with Javascript and Flash.
> The only application I have added
> that might operate at the system level, and that might affect the
> stability of the Mac is Keyboard Maestro- which is why I mentioned it.
Which ignores the fact that *ALL* Mac apps work at the system level (UI
calls, file system calls, and so on), and so can cause `system
instability' - if, that is, they should happen to trigger bugs.
> Clearly we use our Macs in different ways.
Clearly, you make invalid assumptions based on no data to `prove' your
points using invalid techniques.
The big difference between my MacOS X Macs and yours is that you seem to
have installed software that might affect system stability and I
haven't.
Rowland.
Rowland McDonnell
[snip]
> I think that I probably have something approaching a vanilla Mac in that
> I don't go in much for haxies of one kind or another.
I make a point of ensuring that I install nothing by Unsanity. No
haxies at all.
> There ARE a few
> things that appear in System Preferences - Default Folder, Flip4Mac,
> for example - but nothing that produces fancy extra docks, folder
> manipulators, search facilities etc. So there's not all that much that
> an upgrade could break. I hope :-)
Extra docks and search facilities are things that are provided by normal
applications such as DragThing and EasyFind - no risks to system
stability there, not really.
Flip4Mac and Default Folder both seem to me to be more likely to cause
instability than something harmless like EasyFind (extra search
facilities) or DragThing (more docks).
The only serious issue I've had due to additions on 10.6 is the runaway
Spotlight importer with Mailsmith. And you'd've thought that Mailsmith
was a really plain and boring application that couldn't screw anything
up on the System level, right?
Rowland.
Rowland McDonnell
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:56:33 -0000, Peter Ceresole
> <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> I use the Finder in icon and list
> >> view almost exclusively. This coverflow lark doesn't work reliably,
> >> I've found.
> >
> > I use list and (very occasionally) icon view, but never coverflow. When
> > I've tried it, out of curiosity, it's always worked okay, but it seems
> > to me to be a very awkward way to view folders.
>
> It is, and there are numerous file types it can't understand so you get
> either a generic document icon, or no icon at all.
Exactly so. And even with file types that should get displayed in
coverflow, it doesn't always do the job.
> It is ok for folders of images,
I use icon view for folders of images - coverflow's definitely too
clumsy and slow for that job.
> but I find QuickLook from my normal view
> (press space and then scroll thru the list with the down arrow) easier.
Hmm. Never knew you could do that. Oh, if only Apple still supplied
manuals with its Macs. All these UI features I simply don't know about
and won't ever learn about except by reading this sort of thing...
Rowland.
Peter Ceresole
> The big difference between my MacOS X Macs and yours is that you seem to
> have installed software that might affect system stability and I
> haven't.
Yet you are always complaining about your Macs (of any kind) being
unstable, and mine are not.
So it looks as though I have got it right, and you have not.
--
Peter
Woody
> Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > So you've never added any software to that Mac, eh?
> >
> > Only normal applications like Firefox.
>
> `Normal' as in `what Peter C. uses', yes?
>
> Firefox uses Java - security risks there, and with Javascript and Flash.
Firefox doesn't use an Java itself. It can use the java (or flash)
plugin, as safari does) though.
--
Woody
Rowland McDonnell
> Simon Dobbs <simon...@froglet.net> wrote:
>
> > FOR YOU, ON SOFTWARE UPDATE, NOW
> >
> > The 10.6.2 Update is recommended for all users running Mac OS X Snow Leopard
> > and includes general operating system fixes that enhance the stability,
> > compatibility, and security of your Mac, including fixes for:
> <long list of stuff>
>
> Waiting a couple of days, myself, to see what breaks, etc.
> This must mean, shurely, that I'm getting old...
As I've got older, I've got *MUCH* less cautious about that sort of
thing.
(but a bit more cautious about important stuff, like the risks of motor
vehicle inspired sudden acceleration events with reference to their
frequency of incidence in the set of road users who are motorcycle
riders[1])
Rowland.
[1] i.e., I'm a wee bit more careful (maybe paranoid?) about making
sure I don't get knocked off me bike.
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
>
> > The big difference between my MacOS X Macs and yours is that you seem to
> > have installed software that might affect system stability and I
> > haven't.
>
> Yet you are always complaining about your Macs (of any kind) being
> unstable, and mine are not.
Yet that claim is fiction. I have, for example, always referred to my
Macintosh 512Ke as 100% reliable if running one of the OS versions it
was meant to run. I'm pretty sure I've never complained about the
reliability of my 475, or my Plus. The hardware of the PPC Macs we
bought new was in all cases fucking dreadful - they all broke in
service, and I don't think any of 'em lasted as long as four years in
service. But that cannot have anything to do with anything other than
Apple's manufacturing quality control.
I have, for example, pointed out that I've had very few kernel panics
under MacOS X 10.4 - and that the kernel panics I have had have mostly
been due to added hardware (a USB ISDA TA, now obsolete, and a PCI USB 2
card - all quite harmless, one would have thought).
I don't recall seeing any kernel panics under 10.6 at all so far.
I would like to know why you make this sort of crap up, Peter - what are
you thinking of?
> So it looks as though I have got it right, and you have not.
Since there is good evidence that you fail to notice problems that
matter to me while also experiencing the problems I get, it seems that
your data is unreliable (e.g., the Eudora 3.1.3 light display bug).
There is also evidence that some of the problems I meet you fail to meet
simply because I make more full use of the software in question. For
example, you claiming that the MS Word - MS Word translators for MS Word
5.1a works perfectly all the time and me disputing your claim: turns out
that you only dealt with text-only documents without any formatting to
speak of. I was talking about documents containing graphics, tables,
charts, document structuring and uncle Tom Cobleigh an' all, I expect.
Rowland McDonnell
> Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > So you've never added any software to that Mac, eh?
> > >
> > > Only normal applications like Firefox.
> >
> > `Normal' as in `what Peter C. uses', yes?
> >
> > Firefox uses Java - security risks there, and with Javascript and Flash.
>
> Firefox doesn't use an Java itself. It can use the java (or flash)
> plugin, as safari does) though.
So what you're saying is that Firefox can't use Java or Javascript
because it's got to call up a plugin to use Java or Javascript?
That does not make sense.
Woody
> Woody <use...@alienrat.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Peter Ceresole <pe...@cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Rowland McDonnell <real-addr...@flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > So you've never added any software to that Mac, eh?
> > > >
> > > > Only normal applications like Firefox.
> > >
> > > `Normal' as in `what Peter C. uses', yes?
> > >
> > > Firefox uses Java - security risks there, and with Javascript and Flash.
> >
> > Firefox doesn't use an Java itself. It can use the java (or flash)
> > plugin, as safari does) though.
>
> So what you're saying is that Firefox can't use Java or Javascript
> because it's got to call up a plugin to use Java or Javascript?
I didn't mention Javascript.
> That does not make sense.
Firefox doesn't use any Java other than the Java plugin - it natively
doesn't do any java.
--
Woody
R
> Simon Dobbs <simon...@froglet.net> writes:
>
> > FOR YOU, ON SOFTWARE UPDATE, NOW
> >
> > The 10.6.2 Update is recommended for all users running Mac OS X Snow Leopard
> > and includes general operating system fixes that enhance the stability,
> > compatibility, and security of your Mac, including fixes for:
>
> Well, time to upgrade to SL now!
Ditto-ish. Snow Kitty remains in the box here. Now might
be the moment to release her.