Slashdot Log In
Apple OS X 10.5.6 Update Breaks Some MacBook Pros
Posted by
Soulskill
on Sat Dec 27, 2008 10:55 AM
from the somebody-just-got-fired dept.
from the somebody-just-got-fired dept.
Newscloud writes "As PC Mag reported last week, Apple OS X 10.5.6 can break some MacBook Pros leaving some users (like me) with a dead backlit black screen after the Apple logo appears. While I initially thought I had a hardware failure, it turns out that there is a fix as long as you have an external display, keyboard and mouse. The problem only appears on the second restart, so if you sleep your MacBook a lot as I do, you might not realize the problem is related to the OS update you did the week before. The problem was related to older, incompatible firmware that Software Update wasn't flagging before the upgrade. This definitely gives weight to the argument for waiting a bit to run software upgrades."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Hi, I'm a Mac! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What do "I'm a Mac", "I'm a PC", and "Can you hear me now?" have in common? They are all phrases uttered by characters that I would tremendously enjoy brutally killing in the longest, most agonizing fashion possible.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
How does Apple's QA miss problems like these... (Score:5, Insightful)
...when they have such a small hardware deployment environment? Seriously... Linux runs on TONS of hardware, Windows runs on TONS of hardware. Apple's OSX runs (in a supported fashion ;)) on VERY little hardware.
Re:How does Apple's QA miss problems like these... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:How does Apple's QA miss problems like these... (Score:5, Insightful)
the problem was it was a faulty firmware that slipped through software update and was pulled a half hour later. It was replaced with the right firmware but a few people needing to be on the BLEEDING EDGE of updates never reapplied the right firmware, and thus are the ones complaining now.
Cut out the apologist bullshit.
Was it an official Apple update? Was it reasonable that those users would install an official update with no indication that there was a risk to their system?
Perhaps occasional f***-ups are inevitable, but it was still Apple's fault. Trying to imply that those users are to blame is fanboyish cult-defence of the worst order.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah...it seems when they sent their people out to check every purchased machine to make sure the user had updated their firmware they missed a few addresses. I bet those people didn't register their hardware or something...
Seems to me the OS update could just check to see if the latest firmware was installed. That or they could have tested it on the older firmware.
Also...Linux FAILS on TONS of hardware, Windows FAILS on TONS of hardware.
Windows and Linux fail on more machines than Apple even supports. The number of hardware configurations that Apple supports compared to Windows or Linux is tiny.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Amazing (Score:5, Funny)
I know some people really love their Macs but this is ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They were, after all, first to ditch the floppy drives.
this sounds like user error to me (Score:4, Insightful)
Hooray, my MacBook Pro is working again. And this seems to confirm for me that the 10.5.6 update breaks some systems if you are running older firmware.
Sorry but if you're skipping a firmware update, and running a major OS update on old firmware, you deserve a headache.
The Software Update presents updates in the order Apple recommends you install them. Skipping one update to run another is a stupid thing to do. The worst combination I can imagine is a firmware and an os update being installed out of order.
Re:this sounds like user error to me (Score:5, Insightful)
I would amend this by saying Apple probably shouldn't have let him do this. There is a firmware update required to update to mac os 9 (from 8.6) and another on some machines before upgrading from 9.1 to 9.2. (imacs only I think?) Apple will not ALLOW those OS's to install until the firmware update is applied. Some machines also required a firmware update before installing OS X.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Close, but Wrong (Score:3, Interesting)
The installer shouldn't refuse to continue, it should upgrade the firmware! OSX has a luxury no other operating system has--it runs on purpose built hardware under its control. Thus its installer has no excuse to not just update the firmware.
all you need is an external monitor (Score:4, Informative)
Except after two months you still can't get the dual link dvi adapters [apple.com]. Those with 30" monitors were already pretty peeved that they haven't been able to use them. Now you have to buy a useless $30 attachment or go to the Apple store to fix your mac after a firmware bug. No thanks.
Some advice... (Score:4, Informative)
Typically it is advisable to download and run the Combo update installer for these point releases. While Software Update is great for the little things, these bigger updates can cause issues for a variety of reasons if done through Software Update (sometimes files don't get updated that should be updated due to permissions or corruption or some other random change the update is not expecting to see).
Fear of the unknown (Score:3, Interesting)
This definitely gives weight to the argument for waiting a bit to run software upgrades."
I'm going to pick on submitter here. This is your fear of the unknown. There is another guy who I work with that likes to pull this BS out of the air all the time when a new release comes out.
His argument: Ohnoz, I'm scared.
My argument: Here is the changelog. These are the real risks that are posed by continuing to use the old version. These are the benefits of upgrading.
When I started working for the company, software was years and years out of date. He had used this excuse for a long time to basically not do anything he thought was risky, but had in fact amassed a huge amount of risk to the business that ended up costing us a lot of real money.
Granted, there is some value to waiting a reasonable short period of time to gather your wits and read the changelog before upgrading/patching, but that should never be an excuse to coddle a fear of the unknown.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'd say both of you were wrong.
Machines NOT on the internet (or, completely firewalled off) do not need to be updated as religiously as machines getting direct exposure. Simple as that.
Secondly, if you're running Unix-like systems, you can directly see what is being changed and back it up specifically, using any assortment of services. If an update doesnt work, just delete/restore from backup. Simple.
On Windows, updates are inherently scary. Yes, there are single-issue updates, but they're a PITA do deal wi
Run Debian! (Score:5, Funny)
You hardly ever have to worry about pesky OS upgrades.
News! OS X update breaks MBPs and /. decorum! (Score:5, Interesting)
No, I'm not new here.
Neither am I trolling, neither is this flamebait.
It's just that there a LOT of posts complaining that if this were to happen with an MS update, the Apple gang would be crucifying them and a lot of negativity that this is funny.
Mismanaged updates by either corporation - Apple or MS - is indefensible and inexcusable, and it's usually a real problem for the victims.
The occasional screwed-up update from Apple is something Apple users are - unfortunately - used to experiencing. Ditto for the MS users. Given that I'm a user of both, that's just my experience.
I think we excuse Linux problems (I'm a user of that, too) because the software was free. There's some merit to that, but as I think about that statement it does make me ponder... In any case, the real demerits of the OS choices are overlooked at times like this:
1. Linux not liked because no corporation stands behind the OS potentially misbehaving. This is a real problem in the minds of many corporate managers who have to oversee risk.
2. OS X is the "odd man out" where corp mgrs don't want that risk.
3. MS may obsolesce something that worked for the whole organization in favor of something that seems to work less well, another risk issue for corp mgrs.
The fact that an update involving any of the three might screw something up is neither a decision-point nor cause for immature glee.
The problem from TFA is an unfortunate and foreseeable consequence of testing getting the short-shrift.
Re:More bricked computers (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:More bricked computers (Score:5, Funny)
iBrick®
Parent
Re:More bricked computers (Score:4, Informative)
Exactly â"Âalmost never â" bricking is a very rare occurrence, and it's not happening in this case.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Unless, of course, you take it to your local Apple store, Best Buy, Circuit City, etc. Then they'll likely have it fixed for you in fifteen minutes. But, yes, it's a PITA.
Re:More bricked computers (Score:4, Interesting)
That's because JTAG A. is specialized hardware that very, very few people have access to, and B. almost always involves soldering a connector onto the device's board because it almost NEVER gets shipped with the headers populated in production hardware. So yes, safe to say if it requires soldering inside the unit, that qualifies as bricked.... That's significantly different than a software issue.
BTW, at least one of the people in that thread is (with 85% probability) seeing an NVidia chip failure. I wouldn't be surprised if several of them were that. The original poster also has some sort of hardware problem. And so on. These issues are all over the map, but are getting lumped together because they have the same symptoms and all happened right around the time of a software update. I strongly suspect that this is yet another non-story in which people jump to very wrong conclusions and mistakenly see patterns where none exist. It happens after pretty much every Mac OS X update, and apart from fairly minor things like "X feature of Y app doesn't work" or "X application crashes now", they almost never pan out.... (The one time in my memory that they did, it was caused by APE.)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No one is safe from the "oops" bug (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:No one is safe from the "oops" bug (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:No one is safe from the "oops" bug (Score:4, Insightful)
So, how's that 'just workin' for ya?
Sorry, I don't mean to be flamebait, but this story is irritating. If it were a Windows story, it would be, "Microsoft update bricks user pc's" with the summary "Microsoft, in yet another example of shoddy programming, has managed to brick billions of users' pc's with their latest auto-update. With most users unaware they can even disable these updates, is it really any surprise that they've screwed their customer once again?"
Instead, we get this, "Ah gee golly look, I guess this little update means we should let someone else work the kinks out before we update our macs!" Nevermind that Apple has a history of shutting down their hardware via updates.
NOTE: I believe brick == unrecoverable. I'm merely stating what I think the summary would have been, not what it should have been/etc.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's worth noting that Apple's Software Update always asks for user confirmation before installing anything. This is substantively different from Microsoft's strategy of installing any and all updates without asking until the user uses the control panel to change the policy.
While this difference doesn't change the number of suckers using each respective platform, Apple's the vendor that makes it easy to put off updates until they've been in the wild for a while. It's also much less presumptive of Apple. (Th
Well, that is a trade off (Score:4, Insightful)
If Apple had the market share of Windows and still had the default be "dont automatically install most updates", they'd be a huge source of botnets. Microsoft instead chose to install most updates by default (which is probably what most people want) and let nerds who know what they are doing turn that feature off.
Personally, I am surprised to learn Apple doesn't install most updates by default. I think for a consumer OS, such a policy is a very insecure one and is asking for trouble. Are you telling me it won't update itself without asking even if there is a zero-day exploit in the wild?
Parent
Re:Well, that is a trade off (Score:4, Interesting)
That's right. By default, it downloads updates and then prompts users to install. If a reboot is required, users have the option to defer the installation until the next reboot. There's also always the option to not install the update at all. I agree that Apple's defaults probably wouldn't be a good idea for most Windows users, but they work well enough for me. (And the fact that there's so much outcry over a bad update like this suggests that Mac users are pretty good at patching their systems quickly.)
Parent
Re:No one is safe from the "oops" bug (Score:4, Insightful)
And here's what the popup box says: To allow, click the mouse button. To deny, click the mouse button.
Srsly, unless it said that it would totally bork your display, asking for confirmation is a waste of time and totally irrelevant. Obsequious != user friendly.
Parent
Re:No one is safe from the "oops" bug (Score:5, Informative)
Get a USB patch stick (search on google code), which includes SSH as an install... then do a search for "downgrade apple tv" and you'll find a little script which will download and install the 2.2 firmware for you (or 2.1 if you're so inclined)... then we it reboots, go and turn off the auto-update feature under settings.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You're probably not looking at it right. Or you have the wrong kind of candles. You sure the Pentagram is exact?
Re:No one is safe from the "oops" bug (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, you would suppose that the limited flexibility in configurations where you can get OS X would mean that those configurations that are supported are tested properly.
Apple machines may be overpriced or not, but it's hard to deny that the company tries to make the argument that it provides an integrated environment.
Parent
Re:No one is safe from the "oops" bug (Score:4, Informative)
Perhaps at the "Reality Distortion Field" level the culture is different. But I don't see a hell of lot of difference between the 'user experience' of a BSOD and the failure of a point upgrade that would require a non technical user to return the computer to the store / factory. The OS X kernel panic screen has nifty graphics but also has even more incomprehensible babble than the typical BSOD screen (really, I don't understand Mandarin Chinese, I don't). That's not the user experience you're looking for....
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1) It's Japanese on the panic message, not Chinese
2) When written, you just call it Chinese and not Mandarin Chinese; the distinctions "Mandarin" and "Cantonese" are primarily for spoken language, as the written languages are very nearly identical
3) I fail to see how it could be incomprehensible, seeing as it is pretty much obvious that there are different languages on the panic screen, and that it is giving you very clear instructions on what to do next: see one for yourself [macamour.com]
Besides, Windows XP (and likely
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Key...board? Is that like a touch screen?
Re:Here we go (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see defensive Apple zealots, in fact, here are ALL the posts above, including yours..
Yet another FW update that bricks machines.
So, when you discouvered your Mac had what you thought was a hardware failure, who talked you back from the ledge? Are you in therapy?
Hi, I'm a Mac! Look at me, I can update myself! Hi, I'm a PC! Wow look at that, he's updating himself! So how's the update going, Mac? Hello? Hello? Hellooooo!
Haha :-D
Apple zealots defending this lack of testing to their death. Imagine the trolls that would be out if this were a Vista update ;-)
I know which system slashtarded trolls mostly support, and it's not Vista either. It's the one system that doesn't get idiotic comments like all the above, because updates _neeeeeever_ break it, and bad things just don't happen to it (that Slashdot reports). Quit making the rest of that community look bad.
Parent
I'll toss a log into the fire (Score:4, Interesting)
And assert that certain linux distributions are far worse then this. And by "certian" I am refering to Gentoo. Nothing is more exciting then either
a) some jackass removed some library in a way that breaks half your dependencies. Lesson? Always make sure you can restart ssh and then log in before you close your existing ssh session.
b) having your upgrade break because some jackass depreciated some library in a way that forces you to upgrade in a very rigid step-by-step manner. Lesson? Be afraid of updating your system--it will probably break.
Funner still is searching the Gentoo forums for an answer and sifting through the "this was in the archives, jackass", "this is what you get for waiting a week between updates," and "didn't you read the CVS commit on mailing-list XYZ? We discussed this already, so it isn't my fault".
You haven't experienced "update breaks system" until you've experienced the "Gentoo update breaks system". Gentoo is good in theory and there is a lot I like--for example I love the use of color in their toolkit and the command line. I with other distros and unix's would make their utilities use color more. But Gentoo is a bitch to update.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I installed Gentoo once and while it helped me understanding how a Linux distro works and how everything fits together, I never intented to use it as my OS.
If you do, you can expect stuff like this. Nobody every said Gentoo was for normal, non-pro users.
I can see the advertisement now .. (Score:3, Insightful)
Gentoo, the Linux distro for professionals who don't want a working OS.
Re:I'll toss a log into the fire (Score:4, Insightful)
And assert that certain linux distributions are far worse then this. And by "certian" I am refering to Gentoo.
Yeah, but Gentoo's pretty much unique amongst Linux distros in that respect. It's also impossible to test upgrades properly, due to the very large number of possible combinations of packages, useflags, etc. This is why Gentoo is not suitable for normal users - it's more like an easier-to-maintain version of Linux From Scratch that a real distro.
(Also, believe it or not, Gentoo has actually improved quite a bit in this regard over the years.)
Parent
Re:Here we go (Score:5, Funny)
Switching it on?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Umm... Pretty much by definition, blue screens can't be user error, unless that "user error" involves something like disconnecting the hard drive while it's in use. If the user can reliably cause a blue screen through software methods, then that is a bug in the software, and not the user's fault.
The fact that you think you can dismiss most blue screens as user or hardware errors shows that your standards have been lowered so far that you're pretty much incapable of making a meaningful judgment on the issue.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
True, but which of those used the slogan "it just works"?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'd argue that OS X was a unix playground since the public beta - probably because by that time, I was used to pure BSD and pure AT&T UNIX and many, many variants and pre-Novell, pre-SCO and pre-whatever nobuddy I knew gave a toot about certs - so long as we knew how to manage the beast, it was just another nix.
Is it true that this rev is the first to be certified as UNIX? I'll take your word for it.
But certified or not - it's core has always been UNIX. Today Apple gives credit to its FreeBSD heritage
Re: (Score:3, Informative)