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."
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!
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...
Apple controls the hardware, so they can be sure everything runs smoothly on it. That's what you get for running Mac OS X on unsupported hardware. Oh, wait....
True, my AppleTV iBricked itself after the last "update". The only solution is to take it to your local Apple Store for a factory reset. Trouble is, my nearest Apple Store is 160 miles away. :-(
If I had an Ass, I'd call it Fanny Bottom, then I could slap my Ass; Fanny Bottom, on the Arse.
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.
I know some people really love their Macs but this is ridiculous.
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.
Get a USB patch stick (search on google code), which includes SSH as an install... then do a search for "downgrade apple tv" and you'll find a little script which will download and install the 2.2 firmware for you (or 2.1 if you're so inclined)... then we it reboots, go and turn off the auto-update feature under settings.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
You hardly ever have to worry about pesky OS upgrades.
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.
Switching it on?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
iBrick®
No, I'm not new here.
Neither am I trolling, neither is this flamebait.
It's just that there a LOT of posts complaining that if this were to happen with an MS update, the Apple gang would be crucifying them and a lot of negativity that this is funny.
Mismanaged updates by either corporation - Apple or MS - is indefensible and inexcusable, and it's usually a real problem for the victims.
The occasional screwed-up update from Apple is something Apple users are - unfortunately - used to experiencing. Ditto for the MS users. Given that I'm a user of both, that's just my experience.
I think we excuse Linux problems (I'm a user of that, too) because the software was free. There's some merit to that, but as I think about that statement it does make me ponder... In any case, the real demerits of the OS choices are overlooked at times like this:
1. Linux not liked because no corporation stands behind the OS potentially misbehaving. This is a real problem in the minds of many corporate managers who have to oversee risk.
2. OS X is the "odd man out" where corp mgrs don't want that risk.
3. MS may obsolesce something that worked for the whole organization in favor of something that seems to work less well, another risk issue for corp mgrs.
The fact that an update involving any of the three might screw something up is neither a decision-point nor cause for immature glee.
The problem from TFA is an unfortunate and foreseeable consequence of testing getting the short-shrift.
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.