Slashdot Mirror
Mac OS X 10.4.3 Released
parry writes "Software Update just delivered the Mac OS X 10.4.3 update to my PowerBook.
Key changes include improved responsiveness when searching in Spotlight, Safari now passes the Acid2 test, better performance for MS-DOS formatted volumes and numerous bug fixes."
Unfortunately there are more than a few stories about OS X updates that broke peoples machines around the internet.
Usually nothing major mind you, and typically easy to resolve. The bad thing is that there are many people who don't have other machines around or are missing the original install disks, and a non-booting computer presents a problem.
On the whole though, I would say Apple does a better than average job with these upgrades. It damn near impossible to be perfect every time given the differences from install to install and the wide range of uses people put the machines too.
To directly answer your query, I've never personally had an OS X update go bad on me, but a data set of one is no data set at all.
As always, The OSx86 Project does not condone piracy. Downloading these files is a crime. We have not and will not be a party to illegal activities. This information, like all our news, is to keep you up-to-date on the latest news. Please don't steal.
What a bunch of idiots. No-where on earth is it illegal to download a file. Thing is, they could make it illegal tomorrow and no-one would complain because you're all happy being criminals.
How we know is more important than what we know.
One interesting thing I noticed is in the Finder's preview pane for applications. It basically lists the architectures the application is built for, the information does not appear in the 'get information' window. At this point in time, only the developers tool include the intel binaries. Maybe it was there before, but I did not notice it.
For files not viewable in Safari, however, Apple faces a dilemma. Do you allow people to open them, supposedly without saving them, and have people wondering where those files went? Or do you risk "downloading" files (download in quotes, because of course you're downloading either way) that the user won't really want.
I think Apple is doing it the better way. It diminishes the risk of losing data. For example, Microsoft's e-mail products (and IE) will offer to open files (in the case of e-mail, attachments) "where they are", and not "save" them. The file goes into some temporary directory, the user edits it, saves it, closes it, and... whoops, where'd it go? It didn't overwrite the original file, wherever that is, but you saved it, so you'd expect it's safe, somewhere. So where'd it go?
Sometimes it's just gone. Sometimes it's still on the hard drive, but it's in a hidden temp directory where normal users will never find it. In any case, for most people, the data is as good as gone.
Therefore, I say anything that's being opened in an external viewer (and therefore potentially an editor) should be saved somewhere. If you ask me, the browser shouldn't even open external editors. Anything that can't be opened in the browser should only be allowed to be saved.
In the markup, the row is represented by a p element which is fixed to the window rather than the scrollable canvas. If the Acid2 page is scrolled, the scalp will stay fixed in place, becoming unstuck from the rest of the face, which will scroll.