Hi all, I recently updated to 10.2.8 (2 years late, but I tend to be cautious :-/ ) on my dual 1GHz G4 tower with a 23" Apple display. Now I cant get the machine to waken from sleep mode. The CPU fires up but the screen remains blank and I have to restart the Mac. Any fixes/patches out there?
Trusting my caution, I failed to make a backup of the OS before I upgraded from 10.2.3. If no fixes are available, how can I downgrade again? I have the original 10.2.1 CDs. Start again and upgrade to 10.2.3? Is it still available?
Thanks
Ray
Ray Laughton wrote:
Hi all, I recently updated to 10.2.8 (2 years late, but I tend to be cautious :-/ ) on my dual 1GHz G4 tower with a 23" Apple display. Now I cant get the machine to waken from sleep mode. The CPU fires up but the screen remains blank and I have to restart the Mac. Any fixes/patches out there?
It's called Tiger :)
At least upgrade to Panther. I had the same problem on my rig - went away with Panther.
There's caution, and then there's caution...
=:~)
Ray Laughton wrote:
Hi all, I recently updated to 10.2.8 (2 years late, but I tend to be cautious :-/ ) on my dual 1GHz G4 tower with a 23" Apple display. Now I cant get the machine to waken from sleep mode. The CPU fires up but the screen remains blank and I have to restart the Mac. Any fixes/patches out there?
It's called Tiger :)
At least upgrade to Panther. I had the same problem on my rig - went away with Panther.
There's caution, and then there's caution...
Chu
Chu-en Ginsberg nospamhere@redacted.invalid wrote:
Ray Laughton wrote:
Hi all, I recently updated to 10.2.8 (2 years late, but I tend to be cautious :-/ ) on my dual 1GHz G4 tower with a 23" Apple display. Now I cant get the machine to waken from sleep mode. The CPU fires up but the screen remains blank and I have to restart the Mac. Any fixes/patches out there?
It's called Tiger :) NO WAY! Thats due on my machine in 2007 at the earliest! Is the Classic OS still available with Tiger?
At least upgrade to Panther. I had the same problem on my rig - went away with Panther. Why? 10.2.3 didnt have this problem. I was bold to upgrade so soon! :-/
There's caution, and then there's caution... Right, and I wasn't cautious enough, it seems....
Ray
In article 1h3q3i8.1v03g6712ngqf4N%rlaughton@redacted.invalid, rlaughton@redacted.invalid (Ray Laughton) wrote:
Chu-en Ginsberg nospamhere@redacted.invalid wrote:
It's called Tiger :) NO WAY! Thats due on my machine in 2007 at the earliest! Is the Classic OS still available with Tiger?
Yes, though I didn't install Classic on my Mini and don't plan to, so I can't actually say first-hand. It is alleged to be an option.
Isn't 2007 a bit soon for Tiger? It will probably still be supported then. For best stability, you want to make sure never to install an OS until after it is no longer supported. :-) I could dig up a copy of Apple Dos 3.2 if you'd like, but you can't have my 2e to run it on. :-)
At least upgrade to Panther. I had the same problem on my rig - went away with Panther. Why? 10.2.3 didnt have this problem.
Are you really asking why software sometimes has bugs? And why sometimes new bugs that weren't in an older version appear in a new release of software and are squashed in a yet later release? If that's really what you are asking, it is a larger question than can be well addressed here. :-(
I'll assume this was more in the nature of a rhetorical sigh than an actual question. Perhaps the smiley on the next line was also supposed to apply here. That would make sense.
In article 1h3punu.q98xbctwal84N%rlaughton@redacted.invalid, rlaughton@redacted.invalid (Ray Laughton) wrote:
Hi all, I recently updated to 10.2.8 (2 years late, but I tend to be cautious :-/ ) on my dual 1GHz G4 tower with a 23" Apple display. Now I cant get the machine to waken from sleep mode. The CPU fires up but the screen remains blank and I have to restart the Mac. Any fixes/patches out there?
Trusting my caution, I failed to make a backup of the OS before I upgraded from 10.2.3. If no fixes are available, how can I downgrade again? I have the original 10.2.1 CDs. Start again and upgrade to 10.2.3? Is it still available?
Take a look at http://www.takecontrolbooks.com/default.html There are a number of excellent ebooks on this and other Mac subjects.
Richard E Maine nospam@redacted.invalid wrote:
At least upgrade to Panther. I had the same problem on my rig - went away with Panther. Why? 10.2.3 didnt have this problem.
Are you really asking why software sometimes has bugs? And why sometimes new bugs that weren't in an older version appear in a new release of software and are squashed in a yet later release? If that's really what you are asking, it is a larger question than can be well addressed here. :-(
I just meant why bother with Panther if I can go back to 10.2.3 which was stable and had no sleep mode problems. I'll do Panther in 2006, after carefully checking the relevant newsgroups for such bugs beforehand. :-/ I don't know if you've noticed, but the Mac OS upgrades nowdays are more hype and animal skins than substantial improvements in the OS. (Tiger has brought back macros - wow!) It may be cynical, but I get the impression bugs are slipped into OS-updates just before a major (meaning $$) version change. I'll never forget the way OS 9 was slowed and unstabilised compared to 8.6 to soften us up for the "jump" to OS X.
Ray
Ray Laughton rlaughton@redacted.invalid wrote:
Richard E Maine nospam@redacted.invalid wrote:
At least upgrade to Panther. I had the same problem on my rig - went away with Panther. Why? 10.2.3 didnt have this problem.
Are you really asking why software sometimes has bugs? And why sometimes new bugs that weren't in an older version appear in a new release of software and are squashed in a yet later release? If that's really what you are asking, it is a larger question than can be well addressed here. :-(
I just meant why bother with Panther if I can go back to 10.2.3 which was stable and had no sleep mode problems. I'll do Panther in 2006, after carefully checking the relevant newsgroups for such bugs beforehand. :-/ I don't know if you've noticed, but the Mac OS upgrades nowdays are more hype and animal skins than substantial improvements in the OS. (Tiger has brought back macros - wow!) It may be cynical, but I get the impression bugs are slipped into OS-updates just before a major (meaning $$) version change. I'll never forget the way OS 9 was slowed and unstabilised compared to 8.6 to soften us up for the "jump" to OS X.
Ray
FWIW, I noticed a significant improvement in capability and stability on moving from 10.2.8 to 10.3.9. I wouldn't care to go back!
This is on a 733MHz G4.
John.
In article 1h3rczp.9j1iup18uihz4N%nemo@redacted.invalid, nemo@redacted.invalid (John Hill) wrote:
Ray Laughton rlaughton@redacted.invalid wrote:
I just meant why bother with Panther if I can go back to 10.2.3 which was stable and had no sleep mode problems....
Ah. That makes more sense than what I thought you were asking.
I don't know if you've noticed, but the Mac OS upgrades nowdays are more hype and animal skins than substantial improvements in the OS.
Yes, I've noticed. I don't much care one way o another (yet, anyway) about 10.3 vs 10.4. This machine is 10.4, while my one at work is 10.3. Not much difference that I care about (yet - though I'm suspicious that the app that wouldn't run for me a few weeks ago at work was built for 10.4 only - haven't checked that hypothesis).
But 10.2 to 10.3 was huge and fundamental for me. Namely the addition of a supported X11 in 10.3. Using 10.2 just is not viable at all in my case. Yes, I know about the other options for X11; none of them are viable for my purposes. I have many apps that won't work with them. And the old Apple beta X11 distribution license has expired so I couldn't legally run it at work anyway (and yes, it matters at work).
I'll never forget the way OS 9 was slowed and unstabilised compared to 8.6 to soften us up for the "jump" to OS X.
No, I didn't notice that, because... OS 9 was simply of zero interest to me. Make it less than zero, because Mac users kept pestering me for Mac versions of my programs and I had to explain to them why it wasn't going to happen. I (like quite a few other engineers) come to Macs from a Unix background (which is why X11 was so critical for me). To me, the Mac is a better done Unix box than the Linux and Sun ones I was using before. WIthout OS X, I wouldn't have a Mac at all.
Richard Maine nospam@redacted.invalid wrote:
But 10.2 to 10.3 was huge and fundamental for me. Namely the addition of a supported X11 in 10.3. Using 10.2 just is not viable at all in my case. Yes, I know about the other options for X11; none of them are viable for my purposes. I have many apps that won't work with them. And the old Apple beta X11 distribution license has expired so I couldn't legally run it at work anyway (and yes, it matters at work). OK, so it was vital for your work. But what uniquely useful stuff can you do with X11 programs? Guide satellites, drive ICBMs? Fiddling with Unix doesn't count. I don't need it, so I could stay with OS 10.2. In fact it was the peversity of using Unix for text processing that drove me into the arms of that first little Mac back in 1984.
I'll never forget the way OS 9 was slowed and unstabilised compared to 8.6 to soften us up for the "jump" to OS X.
No, I didn't notice that, because... OS 9 was simply of zero interest to me. Make it less than zero, because Mac users kept pestering me for Mac versions of my programs and I had to explain to them why it wasn't going to happen. Why not? The Mac world pre-OS10 was a dedicated bunch, they would have worshipped if you had deigned to help. Now that you're familiar with our GUI (or do you only work in terminal mode?) you might appreciate the reason for their enthusiasm in the 80's and 90's..
ray
John Hill nemo@redacted.invalid wrote:
FWIW, I noticed a significant improvement in capability and stability on moving from 10.2.8 to 10.3.9. I wouldn't care to go back!
This is on a 733MHz G4.
Right, but we've decided that 10.2.8 is a bummer anyway. How did 10.3.9 compare with 10.2.3 or 10.2.6?
ray
Ray Laughton rlaughton@redacted.invalid wrote:
John Hill nemo@redacted.invalid wrote:
FWIW, I noticed a significant improvement in capability and stability on moving from 10.2.8 to 10.3.9. I wouldn't care to go back!
This is on a 733MHz G4.
Right, but we've decided that 10.2.8 is a bummer anyway. How did 10.3.9 compare with 10.2.3 or 10.2.6?
ray
Just to add a PS to this story: I seem to have found the cause of my G4's display not waking from sleep mode: Looks like there's a bug or incompatibility between OS 10.2.8 and that stunning desktop image software "OSXplanet 2" which shows an image of earth (or planet of your choice) with regular updates of the weather incl. cloud & storm movements, earthquakes, etc via satellite). I'll contact the author.
ray
Ray Laughton rlaughton@redacted.invalid wrote:
John Hill nemo@redacted.invalid wrote:
FWIW, I noticed a significant improvement in capability and stability on moving from 10.2.8 to 10.3.9. I wouldn't care to go back!
This is on a 733MHz G4.
Right, but we've decided that 10.2.8 is a bummer anyway. How did 10.3.9 compare with 10.2.3 or 10.2.6?
ray
Well, I worked up update by update from about 10.2.2 to 10.2.8 and by and large every one saw an improvement. Certainly 10.2.8 seemed to me to be better than its predecessors.
OTOH, 10.3.9 seems much better than ANYTHING 10.2.x had to offer; the Find is more effective (and Sherlock can be disregarded, because it only looks for things I'm not interested in); the irritating Favourites system (which broke at one point altogether, the only time I've had to reinstall 10.x) has been discarded.
Mail and Safari are both more potent and more stable than those that go with 10.2.x; and applications in general (and Office 2004 in particular) seem happier.
This may be because I use a minimum of gadgetry; Default Folder and ASM are pretty well the only "extras" I use. It's possible that if you like a lot of haxies the answer would be different :-)
I don't have a DVD drive, so it looks as though I'll never be able to compare 10.3 with 10.4; but reading the blurbs and the newsgroups, it seems to me that 10.4 offers a lot of features that I wouldn't want and might get in the way.
John.
John Hill nemo@redacted.invalid wrote:
Ray Laughton rlaughton@redacted.invalid wrote:
John Hill nemo@redacted.invalid wrote:
FWIW, I noticed a significant improvement in capability and stability on moving from 10.2.8 to 10.3.9. I wouldn't care to go back!
This is on a 733MHz G4.
Right, but we've decided that 10.2.8 is a bummer anyway. How did 10.3.9 compare with 10.2.3 or 10.2.6?
ray
Well, I worked up update by update from about 10.2.2 to 10.2.8 and by and large every one saw an improvement. Certainly 10.2.8 seemed to me to be better than its predecessors. I take it all back, seems to be a bug in my desktop image software thats causing my problems.
OTOH, 10.3.9 seems much better than ANYTHING 10.2.x had to offer; the Find is more effective (and Sherlock can be disregarded, because it only looks for things I'm not interested in); the irritating Favourites system (which broke at one point altogether, the only time I've had to reinstall 10.x) has been discarded. I don't use Sherlock either. Favourites? I only know it from Explorer, don't see it in 10.2.8. Is the OS getting bigger, how does your 733Mhz G4 cope speed-wise?
Mail and Safari are both more potent and more stable than those that go with 10.2.x; and applications in general (and Office 2004 in particular) seem happier. Sounds good. Must confess I'm still using Office 98, to which I reluctantly upgraded when Classic refused to run Word 5.1 (IMHO still the best MS product around).
This may be because I use a minimum of gadgetry; Default Folder and ASM are pretty well the only "extras" I use. It's possible that if you like a lot of haxies the answer would be different :-) I'm rather minimalist myself. No more desktop stuff. I have rather taken to iPhoto though, wonderful in this age of digital cameras.
I don't have a DVD drive, so it looks as though I'll never be able to compare 10.3 with 10.4; but reading the blurbs and the newsgroups, it seems to me that 10.4 offers a lot of features that I wouldn't want and might get in the way.
John.
My G4 dual 1Ghz has a DVD drive, almost never use it. Could be useful for the update it seems. So 10.3.9 is the last of the Panther series and is recommended, as I understand. Thanks for your helpful post John.
ray
Ray Laughton rlaughton@redacted.invalid wrote:
Favourites? I only know it from Explorer, don't see it in 10.2.8.
It's a heart-shaped icon in the finder windows. Qiuite iliely you've never bothered with it - I didn't find it very useful and went right off it when it went wrong.
Is the OS getting bigger, how does your 733Mhz G4 cope speed-wise?
It is probably getting bigger - the System folder on my machine is 1.03 GB (as distinct from the Classic System Folder, which is only 268 MB). The Library at Root level is another 1. 29 GB (though this will of course depend on what is installed - I've made no attempt to exclude unwanted languages, for example). The Library at User level is 583 MB - this includes all my Mail files and uncleared caches. So we are takling almost 3 GB in total here.
But 10.3.9 is certainly no slower that was 10.2.8 as far as I can remember. It may even be faster here and there.
John.
John Hill nemo@redacted.invalid wrote:
Ray Laughton rlaughton@redacted.invalid wrote:
Favourites? I only know it from Explorer, don't see it in 10.2.8.
It's a heart-shaped icon in the finder windows. Qiuite iliely you've never bothered with it - I didn't find it very useful and went right off it when it went wrong.
Oh, right. Haven't used it for years.
In article 1h3sr9i.6jp39zlktbmpN%nemo@redacted.invalid, nemo@redacted.invalid (John Hill) wrote:
looks for things I'm not interested in); the irritating Favourites system (which broke at one point altogether, the only time I've had to reinstall 10.x) has been discarded.
Favourites is still there in 10.4.x, but it is now optional. To use it, just make a folder named "Favourites" ("Favorites" for Americans) in your /Users//Library/ folder, then drag that folder to the bottom of the Finder's side bar (Make sure the drop target is a blue horizontal line, not a blue lozenge.) You'll get the familiar heart icon. Put any aliases you like in it, and they'll be there when you want them.
In article 1h3rn54.1mxbycb1wps1j4N%rlaughton@redacted.invalid, rlaughton@redacted.invalid (Ray Laughton) wrote:
Richard Maine nospam@redacted.invalid wrote:
OK, so it (X11) was vital for your work. But what uniquely useful stuff can you do with X11 programs? Guide satellites, drive ICBMs? Fiddling with Unix doesn't count.
Write reasonably portable code that uses graphics. And use many such programs that other people have written that work just fine as is on OS X with X11. Portability is absolutely key to me. I will not waste my time writing Mac-specific code. And I need to use other code that wasn't written to be Mac-specific. If you don't think all the apps in question count, then... well I guess I don't really care; I don't need the approval.
What brought me to the Mac was the combination of a standards-oriented Unix base plus a nicely integrated GUI (along with the fact that Apple does most of the system integration work for me). The GUI alone is worthless to me. I had heard that OS X had a Unix underpinning, so I decided to try it. What sold me was when I compiled the first of my programs and it just worked essentially as is, with no more customization than the typical kind of stuff to get the right options on the compilation commands. Without that, I wouldn't have even looked at the GUI. I don't care how nice it looks if it doesn't run my programs (and the apps that I use from other people). Without that, it might as well be...oh... a nice work of art to hang on my wall. I can appreciate things like that - have several on my walls, but they don't do what I need in a computer.
I don't need it, so I could stay with OS 10.2.
Then that's fine for you. It isn't for me.
OS 9 was simply of zero interest to me. Make it less than zero, because Mac users kept pestering me for Mac versions of my programs and I had to explain to them why it wasn't going to happen. Why not? The Mac world pre-OS10 was a dedicated bunch, they would have worshipped if you had deigned to help. Now that you're familiar with our GUI (or do you only work in terminal mode?) you might appreciate the reason for their enthusiasm in the 80's and 90's..
No, I don't. And I don't particularly need "worship". I need standards-oriented computing platforms. OS X reasonably fits that need. I won't say perfectly, nothing being perfect, but it fits reasonably. And maybe in 10 years or so, something else will fit it better. If so, I'll move on (well, if I'm still programming then), and it won't be hard because I won't have tied myself overly to a single platform. I've been in the computing business for 35 years. In that time, I've been through several changes of my favored platform. If there is one lesson that I've learned, it is that things will change. I have no reason to suspect that I am now using the one-and-only, ultimate, perfect system, never to change again. I see people with that attitude. I even see a few people over in my most usual "hangout" on usenet (comp.lang.fortran) who seem to have gone through that same attitude for about 4 or so different systems (well, compilers in that case). Those people seem a bit slow at learning.
On 30/09/2005 5:07 PM, Ray Laughton wrote:
Chu-en Ginsberg nospamhere@redacted.invalid wrote:
Ray Laughton wrote:
Hi all, I recently updated to 10.2.8 (2 years late, but I tend to be cautious :-/ ) on my dual 1GHz G4 tower with a 23" Apple display. Now I cant get the machine to waken from sleep mode. The CPU fires up but the screen remains blank and I have to restart the Mac. Any fixes/patches out there?
It's called Tiger :)
NO WAY! Thats due on my machine in 2007 at the earliest! Is the Classic OS still available with Tiger?
Yes. The newer hardware from Apple seems to not want to boot to an actual OS 9 partition, but Classic works fine if you have a System Folder somewhere. My SO just bought an iMac and wanted to play Alpha Centauri to get some down time. After some poking around, I just dropped the System Folder from my G4 into the iMac and AC fired up, first time.
In article 1h3r4u6.wb7k641yazsowN%rlaughton@redacted.invalid, rlaughton@redacted.invalid (Ray Laughton) wrote:
It may be cynical, but I get the impression bugs are slipped into OS-updates just before a major (meaning $$) version change. I'll never forget the way OS 9 was slowed and unstabilised compared to 8.6 to soften us up for the "jump" to OS X.
I suspect that is a bit paranoid. Given that slipping bugs into the code base is still engineering work, I would be really surprised if they bothered.
More likely, to me, is testing and focus. I was running Tiger full time as of last November, as were many developers I knew. Any bugs in releases of 10.3 that came up during that period would not be spotted by me. I know other developers who were in the same state.
Scott
In article 1h3rn54.1mxbycb1wps1j4N%rlaughton@redacted.invalid, rlaughton@redacted.invalid (Ray Laughton) wrote:
Richard Maine nospam@redacted.invalid wrote:
No, I didn't notice that, because... OS 9 was simply of zero interest to me. Make it less than zero, because Mac users kept pestering me for Mac versions of my programs and I had to explain to them why it wasn't going to happen. Why not? The Mac world pre-OS10 was a dedicated bunch, they would have worshipped if you had deigned to help. Now that you're familiar with our GUI (or do you only work in terminal mode?) you might appreciate the reason for their enthusiasm in the 80's and 90's..
I think 'deigned' is not the proper word. Porting some of those apps would have been a heck of a lot of work, and it is not clear whether the payoff would have been worth it. Not just money, but time - if I write a second platform version of an app, I cannot write a different one.
I worked on porting a major econometrics app over about ten years ago, and while I liked the OS 9 coding environment better, it was not a fatro of three or four better, which would have been needed to justify the work. The amazing pain of near, far, and huge pointers did not make me happy, but I got by.
Cocoa, on the other hand, appears to have some legs. I now can see productivity boosts of the three and four range, which can justify the work. Similarly, if I instead use Java, I get GUIs, network stacks, threads, and so on, that are very similar between any platform I use, and thus can justify a small amount of additional work to get a new platform. Finally, if the upcoming Web 2.0 stuff takes off, then I can write server side, and serve people on whatever platform they want. All three of these make the 'support the mac' equation much better than it was ten years ago, despite the lower market share nowadays.
Worship is not required, but a decent payoff to the work is. I think Apple has a pretty compelling package nowadays, and I hope they keep running with it - we have not seen the perfect platform as yet.
Scott
Scott Ellsworth scott@redacted.invalid wrote:
In article 1h3r4u6.wb7k641yazsowN%rlaughton@redacted.invalid, rlaughton@redacted.invalid (Ray Laughton) wrote:
It may be cynical, but I get the impression bugs are slipped into OS-updates just before a major (meaning $$) version change. I'll never forget the way OS 9 was slowed and unstabilised compared to 8.6 to soften us up for the "jump" to OS X.
I suspect that is a bit paranoid. Given that slipping bugs into the code base is still engineering work, I would be really surprised if they bothered. Not paranoid, just cynical. Im convinced it happened going from OS 8.6 to 9, Jobs had a lot to lose if OS9 appeared faster and more stable than OS X. In OS X I'm not sure because as a user without Unix I have less control over the OS. It seems to make programming easier for you guys but for users apart from the eye candy its become like Windows (well, almost :-). Files of unknown origin all over the place. Only slightly more stable than pre OS X too.
ray
More likely, to me, is testing and focus. I was running Tiger full time as of last November, as were many developers I knew. Any bugs in releases of 10.3 that came up during that period would not be spotted by me. I know other developers who were in the same state. Hmm... I hear 10.3.9 was a good version.
clvrmnky clvrmnky-uunet@redacted.invalid wrote:
On 30/09/2005 5:07 PM, Ray Laughton wrote:
Chu-en Ginsberg nospamhere@redacted.invalid wrote:
Ray Laughton wrote:
Hi all, I recently updated to 10.2.8 (2 years late, but I tend to be cautious :-/ ) on my dual 1GHz G4 tower with a 23" Apple display. Now I cant get the machine to waken from sleep mode. The CPU fires up but the screen remains blank and I have to restart the Mac. Any fixes/patches out there?
It's called Tiger :)
NO WAY! Thats due on my machine in 2007 at the earliest! Is the Classic OS still available with Tiger?
Yes. The newer hardware from Apple seems to not want to boot to an actual OS 9 partition, but Classic works fine if you have a System Folder somewhere. My SO just bought an iMac and wanted to play Alpha Centauri to get some down time. After some poking around, I just dropped the System Folder from my G4 into the iMac and AC fired up, first time. Interesting. I seem to recall its more hardware-related than OS-related.
ray
In article 1h3w57u.vph0y81634mskN%rlaughton@redacted.invalid, rlaughton@redacted.invalid (Ray Laughton) wrote:
Not paranoid, just cynical.
No, you're paranoid. I'm cynical and can see no merit to your argument.
Im convinced it happened going from OS 8.6 to 9, Jobs had a lot to lose if OS9 appeared faster and more stable than OS X.
Are you suggesting that OS 8.6 was faster than the current versions of OSX? You're almost certainly right on transitional 8/9/X machines. Not on new ones.
Files of unknown origin all over the place. Only slightly more stable than pre OS X too.
The files you should concern yourself with are pretty much in the same place with one layer over them and start with Library. You shouldn't concern yourself with /Library and it isn't trivial to change it. All your personal preferences like in System/Preferences in pre OSX versions are in Library/Preferences( no / in front of Library). Everything to enhance or destroy your system is accessible via the terminal. The terminal just sits there until you learn some UNIX commands. I'm still learning the file system after knowing it in RedHat Linux. There are new commands, but the old important ones work fine. Current versions of OSX are far more stable than OS9 and earlier. Period. You crash applications, not the entire OS. Geeze, I jumped on my soapbox and perhaps missed the point.
leo
In article 1h3w57u.vph0y81634mskN%rlaughton@redacted.invalid, rlaughton@redacted.invalid (Ray Laughton) wrote:
Scott Ellsworth scott@redacted.invalid wrote:
In article 1h3r4u6.wb7k641yazsowN%rlaughton@redacted.invalid, rlaughton@redacted.invalid (Ray Laughton) wrote:
It may be cynical, but I get the impression bugs are slipped into OS-updates just before a major (meaning $$) version change. I'll never forget the way OS 9 was slowed and unstabilised compared to 8.6 to soften us up for the "jump" to OS X.
I suspect that is a bit paranoid. Given that slipping bugs into the code base is still engineering work, I would be really surprised if they bothered. Not paranoid, just cynical. Im convinced it happened going from OS 8.6 to 9, Jobs had a lot to lose if OS9 appeared faster and more stable than OS X.
A simpler explanation is that most of the programmers had been redeployed to OS 10 by then, so OS 9 got only the bare essentials of support, as befitted its soon-to-be legacy status.
Joe Gwinn
Joseph Gwinn JoeGwinn@redacted.invalid wrote:
In article 1h3w57u.vph0y81634mskN%rlaughton@redacted.invalid, rlaughton@redacted.invalid (Ray Laughton) wrote:
Scott Ellsworth scott@redacted.invalid wrote:
In article 1h3r4u6.wb7k641yazsowN%rlaughton@redacted.invalid, rlaughton@redacted.invalid (Ray Laughton) wrote:
It may be cynical, but I get the impression bugs are slipped into OS-updates just before a major (meaning $$) version change. I'll never forget the way OS 9 was slowed and unstabilised compared to 8.6 to soften us up for the "jump" to OS X.
I suspect that is a bit paranoid. Given that slipping bugs into the code base is still engineering work, I would be really surprised if they bothered. Not paranoid, just cynical. Im convinced it happened going from OS 8.6 to 9, Jobs had a lot to lose if OS9 appeared faster and more stable than OS X.
A simpler explanation is that most of the programmers had been redeployed to OS 10 by then, so OS 9 got only the bare essentials of support, as befitted its soon-to-be legacy status.
That would be the benign interpretation of those events.. Dunno, maybe Jobs will come out with the truth in his biography some day.
ray
Leonard Blaisdell leo@redacted.invalid wrote:
In article 1h3w57u.vph0y81634mskN%rlaughton@redacted.invalid, rlaughton@redacted.invalid (Ray Laughton) wrote:
Not paranoid, just cynical.
No, you're paranoid. I'm cynical and can see no merit to your argument. Fine, I can.
Im convinced it happened going from OS 8.6 to 9, Jobs had a lot to lose if OS9 appeared faster and more stable than OS X.
Are you suggesting that OS 8.6 was faster than the current versions of OSX? You're almost certainly right on transitional 8/9/X machines. Not on new ones. Hardware speeds have quadrupled, OS speeds? -hardly. Haven't done serious number crunching since OS X arrived, and I don't use Tiger so I can't tell.
Files of unknown origin all over the place. Only slightly more stable than pre OS X too.
The files you should concern yourself with are pretty much in the same place with one layer over them and start with Library. You shouldn't concern yourself with /Library and it isn't trivial to change it. All your personal preferences like in System/Preferences in pre OSX versions are in Library/Preferences( no / in front of Library). Everything to enhance or destroy your system is accessible via the terminal. The terminal just sits there until you learn some UNIX commands. I'm still learning the file system after knowing it in RedHat Linux. There are new commands, but the old important ones work fine. I haven't touched the command line. I'm a Mac user, not a geek :-/
Current versions of OSX are far more stable than OS9 and earlier. Period. You crash applications, not the entire OS. Geeze, I jumped on my soapbox and perhaps missed the point. Only slightly. I meant these kernel panics, which require a restart. They occur slightly less frequently than the earlier crashes. Now that I've removed my desktop weather map of the world neither of my CPU kernels have paniced (touch wood) but its early days..