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."

Comments

Re:More bricked computers

[noidentity]

Yet another misuse of the term "brick".

How does Apple's QA miss problems like these...

[Assmasher]

...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...

[similar_name]

Exactly, I thought the whole point of Apple tightly controlling all the hardware was so this wouldn't happen. In agreeing with you I would add that Windows and Linux have nothing to very little to do with the hardware side of things.

Re:How does Apple's QA miss problems like these...

[Dogtanian]

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:No one is safe from the "oops" bug

[cnettel]

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.

this sounds like user error to me

[v1]

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

[v1]

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:No one is safe from the "oops" bug

[Tanman]

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:Here we go

[ToasterMonkey]

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.

Well, that is a trade off

[coryking]

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:I'll toss a log into the fire

[makomk]

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:No one is safe from the "oops" bug

[Hognoxious]

It's worth noting that Apple's Software Update always asks for user confirmation

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.