Slashdot Mirror
Apple OS X 10.5.6 Update Breaks Some MacBook Pros
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."
Yet another misuse of the term "brick".
...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.
Loading...
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.
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.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
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.
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.
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. (In my experience, most blue screens are caused by buggy drivers, and thus not entirely Microsoft's fault, either.)
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. (Though their update process with the iPhone offsets any goodwill they may have gotten from that.)
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?
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 for extreme cases where the hardware actually IS bricked. Using it for situations where the hardware is recoverable dilutes the meaning and makes it much more difficult to convey when hardware is legitimately bricked.
> 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.
Oh, right, because nobody could EVER use both, at different times, for different reasons.
You know, you should just pull your own plug because you are effectively brain-dead.
Isn't that what you deserve for using Gentoo.
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.
As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields.
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.)
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.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Gentoo, the Linux distro for professionals who don't want a working OS.