Build 7D12 is on ADC, apparently. A lil more info can be found here: http://macintosh.fryke.com/cgi-bin/macnews.cgi/2003/11/18/index.html#20031118_1032
Mac OS X 10.3.2 soon
- Thread starter fryke
- Start date
Ripcord
Senior Lurker
I'm assuming 10.3.1 was rushed out earlier than Apple would have normally released a x.x.1 release to address some serious potential problems (data corruption!). My guess is that this one actually contains the other bugfixes they've been working on since, most likely, before Panther was released.
Graphics drivers update! I hope there is a better GeForce driver.
Stridder44
Universal Traveler
Good stuff. I love how Apple's always keeping up on this sort of thing.
Some bugs, apparently, only start cropping up when a critical mass is using the operating system. For example, I've tested almost every build of Panther, but my FireWire harddrives just kept working, mainly because I didn't have a drive with the affected chipset. (However, I don't get how this exact bug came about, since I'm pretty sure that those chipmakers knew about the upcoming release and tested it, too... There's even the belief that this bug only came into being in the final release.)
I'm personally glad that Apple does it the way they do. The beta phase ironed out most of the glitches and bugs - i.e. all that could be found. After release Apple was very fast in responding to the problems with the 10.3.1 release - and now they're taking care of the rest, just as with Jaguar. 10.3.2 will be the stable system for a while, I believe.
I'm personally glad that Apple does it the way they do. The beta phase ironed out most of the glitches and bugs - i.e. all that could be found. After release Apple was very fast in responding to the problems with the 10.3.1 release - and now they're taking care of the rest, just as with Jaguar. 10.3.2 will be the stable system for a while, I believe.
Well, 10.3.1 really just was a small bugfix. They could have even left the version number at 10.3.0 and only update the build number, I think. 10.3.2 is the first 'real' update - and 17.2 MB isn't _that_ small either. I guess they'll move to a slower update cycle after 10.3.2, and thus the udpates will get bigger again, although I'm quite a fan of often-and-smaller updates. We like those updates, don't we. ;-)
Well,
As apple users would we expect anything less? Afterall what we do most with our Apples is use them while the PC guys fix them or reboot. Right. I'm typing this on my only PC. It crashes at least once a week. My Apple's are all running right now---haven't crashed in a month!
Go figure. Had to get that in. My Inital exposure to OS X 10.2 a while back had issues with my Imac in sleep mode and a week later when autoupdater installed that for me--I was set and it never did that again! Wow!
As apple users would we expect anything less? Afterall what we do most with our Apples is use them while the PC guys fix them or reboot. Right. I'm typing this on my only PC. It crashes at least once a week. My Apple's are all running right now---haven't crashed in a month!
Go figure. Had to get that in. My Inital exposure to OS X 10.2 a while back had issues with my Imac in sleep mode and a week later when autoupdater installed that for me--I was set and it never did that again! Wow!
Ripcord
Senior Lurker
I've always liked the "smaller, more frequent point release" style versus the "monolithic, once a year" service pack update style that MS uses. For one thing, it lowers the potential of my pain (I possibly only have to put up with a bug for two months instead of a year), and is more interesting to me (I may get new features every two months as well).
Of course, BOTH are a step up from the "upgrade? What upgrade? Just buy a new OS" model used with Win95 and Win98... ($99 to "upgrade" to Win98 SE? Please.)
Of course, BOTH are a step up from the "upgrade? What upgrade? Just buy a new OS" model used with Win95 and Win98... ($99 to "upgrade" to Win98 SE? Please.)
Ripcord
Senior Lurker
ohmelas said:
I don't know the last time my Win2k systems have crashed - it has to have been months (I use the laptop quite heavily every day).
I'm also not quite sure when the last time any of my OS X systems crashed, it's been quite a while (though my Soundsticks keep having a problem periodically ever since upgrading to Panther).
A friend (one that doesn't even know I own a Mac) sent me a video today, a takeoff on the Switch ads where a guy (who "edited and produced the video on [his] Macintosh") rambles on for five or so minutes about all the ways his Mac constantly crashes, behaves weirdly, etc. It was funny and... Not so much true.
Let's face it, folks, both platforms have gotten to the point where they're fairly stable. Win2k and WinXP have their problems (and some of them get REAL bad) that cause crashes, but so does OS X. And there's still a huge number of people running Win98, ME, and even 95 that still deal with that platform's problems (there are still people running, and crashing often under, OS 9, 8.6, etc) and which still crash a lot, but it's tough for me to feel too sorry for the guys still running Win95. In fact, I get the feeling that Windows has more problems because of the heavy saturation of cheap, sloppily written programs and device drivers than because of bugs introduced by Microsoft (though MS has to take at least part of the blame for making it so normal and almost expected to develop the cheap, badly written programs).
Anyway, my severely off-topic point is, stop picking on the PC guys about crashes. It's just not happening anymore (at least not that we can complain about). Find one of the other thousand things to pick on them about (sheep, crappy OS, scientific evidence that shows that prolonged exposure to Windows causes users to look more and more like a cross between Bill Gates and Steve "Uncle Fester" Balmer, etc =)
...Unless you're talking about Linux -- I love Linux as a server system, but it's so not ready for the desktop.
