Apple OS X 10.5.6 Update Breaks Some MacBook Pros 313
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."
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I had a Vista desktop break itself through Automatic update. No fixing, had to reinstall the entire thing. Had the same happen to an early Ubuntu release, in 2005 actually. It's not that uncommon at all, by my experience. Rather aggravating for those who haven't learned to keep the home partition (data) and the binaries/other_OS_files completely seperate through partitions or even other harddrives.
I suppose you don't hear about it so often, because I assume the Windows or Linux universe of machines is s
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This wasn't a hardware problem, it was an obscure firmware issue. My MBP updated its firmware on its own many months ago and then took 10.5.6 with no problems.
Also...Linux FAILS on TONS of hardware, Windows FAILS on TONS of hardware. With the exception of my laptop here and a thr
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:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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... This wasn't a hardware problem, it was an obscure firmware issue. My MBP updated its firmware on its own many months ago and then took 10.5.6 with no problems.
Even with that in mind, the install set that Apple needs to check is tiny compared to Microsoft - and yes, if this update relies on functionality only available after a certain firmware revision, then it should either apply it first, or block the update until the user applies the newer firmware. The same goes for the QAed version of the update - if the QA process was only applied to systems with a certain set of firmware revisions, the update should require those revisions and no other.
It should never simp
Re: (Score:2)
Semantics, really. Apple controls both the firmware and the hardware so it makes no difference. Unlike Linux or Windows, Apple knows *exactly* what hardware and firmware its operating systems will be running on. This gives them the luxury to test their updates on every combo in existence. A rational person would assume that Apple does such testing. I guess that assumption isn't proving to be safe, is it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are missing the point. Welcome to the fail boat.
Apple has everything tightly locked down, correct? That's why there's a limited number of hardware configurations. So then why couldn't they have just put in some sort of check to see what firmware you had? That way when someone does try to do a manual update, it could tell them that they need to update their firmware and possibly even give them step by step instructions on how to do so (that's a stretch).
I don't expect this kind of service from Microsoft.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because the bug can't be reproduced on the hardware every time?
Their HCL does have every currently supported Mac, and they do test on them -- but it seems possible that it might be an issue once you throw user-installed kexts, etc. into the mix (I have no idea whether or not this this case though.)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry but if you're skipping a firmware update, and running a major OS update on old firmware, you deserve a headache.
I didn't think mac users needed to know anything about that stuff. Why would the newest update not include or look for the older update to already be installed. It seems reasonable to me that many users would just choose the newest update without thinking they had to do all prior ones.
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, you shouldn't just click the "want to update your software" now when the bouncy ball shows up. You want to download the combo updater. But how the he
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is failing big time because you have to understand what's going on? Can you be more specific?
The documentation is the worst I've seen since the printed assembly dumps of CP/M.
/presses F1 , browses help screens. ...
again, could you be more specific?
What do you need to understand to do a software update? Click install... ?
Re: (Score:2)
What, pray tell, would the FM say? (Score:2)
I've yet to see a FM, printed or not, that has workarounds for bugs in a very specific software upgrade. That is what knowledge base articles are for.
This is why nobody has FM's for troubleshooting. Software and hardware are too complex to distill into a few pages of troubleshooting. The best you can hope for is "Is the computer plugged in" and leave the rest to a high quality knowledge base. And what is funny is the "Is the computer plugged in" sometimes turns out to solve the problem!!!
Now, the questi
Re: (Score:2)
I think the point was that Apple failed to flag a required firmware update. I may be wrong, I haven't read the article yet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
since the firmware (EFI) update is a lot more effort than the normal updates.
please elaborate? Here, they are functionally identical. Both download, both state they need a restart, both restart, install, and restart again. Nowadays you don't even have to hold the power button to unlock the firmware.
Re: (Score:2)
This makes it very easy to skip, deliberately or accidentally, since installing via Software Update doesn't actually install the EFI update, just the update utility. Maybe they've simplified the procedure recently, but if so then they haven't released any new
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Then why would the update run on outdated firmware? There should be code in there that checks and tells you need to update the firmware before deploying the patch.
Apples are supposed to be ez-mode after all no?
Re: (Score:2)
Any patch that Sun has identified as being extra risky, requires a password that you have to get from the readme file.
Not to forget that Solaris, as it exists now, isn't meant to be a consumer OS. You are expected to be informed and have sufficient recovery hardware on hand when needed. And, if you care that much, you can buy an annual contract that gets you a Sun engineer at your location within fo
Re: (Score:2)
3. Linux and Windows systems don't check firmware levels before updates at all. AFAIK, Solaris patches don't even automatically check firmware levels or block installs, but I might be wrong.
That's because Linux, Windows, and Solaris systems don't assume that there is anything but minimal firmware functionality. They check for the most common chipset and processor bugs and work around them when necessary. Since Apple controls the firmware of Macs, they both assume and require much more functionality.
It's virtually a truism that control of the operating environment results in code that is environment specific. Unless management bashes to developers over the head with this screw up at every
Re: (Score:2)
Did Apple release the firmware via its Apple Software Update for the old models?
Wait? (Score:2)
Waiting on Apple? Look, if you're not the first one to greet and hug your dad, you'll feel less love next time!
Obviously if your dad is Vista, the first one to greet and hug usually gets smack on the head.
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
How are machines not on the Intertubes relevant in a discussion of Macbooks on /. in late 2008? In addition, there's no such thing as "completely firewalled off," unless you're still talking about computers with no 'net connection. If you don't worry about your systems' security post-firewall, then welcome to the year 1995. That's called the m&m security model: hard shell on the outside, soft on the inside, and it brings nothing but trouble in today's world of trojans, worms and malware. Unless you're
Re: (Score:2)
This is your fear of the unknown.
I've been using OS X since the public beta. I used to auto-update. Now I wait. It is not a fear of the unknown - it is, sadly, a fear of the known.
I was one of the guinea pigs who figured out how to resurrect a Mac from a bad update several years ago. In that case, it was screwed up permissions, AFAIR.
Ever since then, I wait. I'm not feeling guilty making others the guinea pigs - maybe I should, but I don't. I wait because there was ONE update that was recalled and anyone who applied it on day one (it
Run Debian! (Score:5, Funny)
You hardly ever have to worry about pesky OS upgrades.
Completely Unacceptable (Score:2)
Jobs should fire his OS validation team.
It is completely unacceptable not to find this when you control ALL of the hardware.
Pathetic. The mind just boggles.
Apple really screwed the pooch on this one.
10.5.5 did this to me (Score:2, Redundant)
When I upgraded to 10.5.5 two issues appeared on my macbook pro (coreduo 15"):
* Battery meter would get to between 40-60% and then the laptop would abruptly poweroff. When I was at 10.5.4, the battery meter would drain, as expected, down and warn as expected when it got to 10% or so.
* After about 30seconds of being powered on, the keyboard and touchpad would become unresponsive. External keyboards/mice continue to work.
Both of these issues are documented on apple's forums.
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)
Re:More bricked computers (Score:5, Funny)
iBrick®
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.
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: (Score:2)
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.)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But it's not actually bricked. It might appear to be bricked, but it wouldn't be wise to make the judgment that it's bricked without at least doing some basic diagnostics such as putting the machine into target disk mode or testing an external display.
Bricking a piece of hardware is relatively difficult for a piece of software to do, even with firmware, because replacing the firmware is usually possible.
Speaking as a bit of a language Nazi (and geek), bricking is one of those terms that should be reserved
Re: (Score:2)
I propose the term "breezeblocked".
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No one is safe from the "oops" bug (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't blame Apple because you haven't upgraded to the latest Macbook Pro modell yet!
Re:No one is safe from the "oops" bug (Score:5, Funny)
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.
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?
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.)
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.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Sorry Phelan, it's been restarted & rebooted a couple of dozen times. All I get is the Apple logo twice then blankety-blank.
Yeah... it was popular at the time, but I can see how being shown nothing but Blankety Blank [youtube.com] could get annoying.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Or a friend or neighbor with such obscure hardware....
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Key...board? Is that like a touch screen?
Re: (Score:2)
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....
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:2)
One argument for the OS X panic message is that it doesn't replace the entire screen, meaning that whatever you may have been working on is still potentially recoverable. With a full-screen BSOD, where technical details essentially fill the screen, this doesn't happen.
Honestly? Instead of using an OS that lets you recuperate 1/4 of a page of a letter you're writing, use a text writer that has a recovery system.
Re: (Score:2)
You're trying to pass off multilingual error messages as worse than stack dumps? Seriously?
At least most people can recognize that the different portions of the OS X kernel panic message have the same meaning, so there's no reason to try to understand those that aren't in your native language. With a windows BSoD, there's way too much information in a language that no regular user is going to be able to parse. So, honestly, which is really worse from a usability standpoint?
Re: (Score:2)
There is currently a "haha" tag. Maybe there wasn't when you posted.
In my experience the response is the same but the sneer is on a different side of the mouth. Why people get religious about OSes is beyond me, but I can assure that there was no shortage people waiting to jump in with little more to say than "I thought Macs didn't crash fanboi! Derp derp".
But I can't blame them, given how shrill Apple's TV ads always are.
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.
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.
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.)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Here we go matching anecdote with anecdote, but I cannot resist.
Look.. I'm a UNIX/Linux guy.. as matter of fact I'm typing this on Slackware. I also like Macs.. but please dispense with the bullshit you're spouting.
I work in higher education as a network admin and work along side the end user support folks. I've seen maybe four Vista crashes out of hundreds of machines coming in through the doo
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
CUPS is easy to configure if you know what you're doing. So it might not be the service that is the unwilling participant in your scenario.
FYI, OSX uses CUPS as it's printing backend. It's just generally transparent if you're not doing anything crazy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are stupid enough to Windows-only device (may it be modem, printer or scanner) instead of one offering standards support it's your own fault and problem. I know cheap modems are shit, I know there are plenty of GID(?) printers and so on, but get a printer and scanner which uses PCL and Twain and it should work, or? Obviously things which don't work without generic drivers won't work in an OS with no specific drivers. It's just the same with many sound cards and probably other expansion cards for Macs
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
1) There's no such thing as a UNIX/Linux guy. You're a Linux guy if you're typing it on Slackware. If you were a UNIX guy you'd be typing it on Solaris or BSD. Also, Slackware? Are you guys on ELF binaries
Well, would you want him to type the same reply twice on a different platform just to prove you're wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm...this is Mac OS X 10.5.x, codename Leopard, the first Mac OS X to be certified as a UNIX [apple.com]. So yeah, Mac OS X geeks are UNIX geeks. Oh yeah, Jordan Hubbard, one of the main FreeBSD guys, is now working at Apple. On Mac OS X.
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, Interesting)
True, but which of those used the slogan "it just works"?
Re: (Score:2)
I've run Vista 64 SP1 for the last year and have experienced 1 crash, and that was due to a FOSS app which I simply stopped using. I didn't have to trade blue screens for sad faces and bombs, I'm ok with that.
Re: (Score:2)
I traded bluescreens in an old version of Windows (95/98 vs XP) against more or less daily application crashes from Safari, X-lite, Mail, ...
Re:Here we go (Score:5, Funny)
Switching it on?
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:2)
I've misjudged your bias. You think overclocking is common. It isn't. It definitely isn't among the kinds of people who would switch to a Mac for the sake of stability. Besides, the first step for somebody disappointed with the stability of their system is to stop running the hardware beyond the specs! Crashes caused by hardware failures due to overclocking are not at all germane to a discussion of the relative stability of two software platforms under everyday use, because overclocking is not an everyday t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've been unhappy with Apple's hardware for some time.
The last decent desktop keyboard Apple shipped was the beige "Extended II". It wasn't a great keyboard, but it was a decent one.
I'm not sure they've *ever* had a decent laptop keyboard, but I've read that some models of the Powerbook designed by IBM Japan were significantly better than the average. My Macbook Pro causes me actual pain to use for more than half an hour or so.