10.5.6 update causes wake from sleep problems
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: Nick Naym on 23 Dec 2008 12:22 In article jollyroger-E915F8.01521223122008(a)news.individual.net, Jolly Roger at jollyroger(a)pobox.com wrote on 12/23/08 2:52 AM: .... .... > > I'm still waiting for the waters to settle a bit before I apply the > latest update. And when i do, it'll definitely be the > manually-downloaded Combo updater. I'm still on 10.5.4...been having sporadic problems (I've discussed some of them here) that I'm inclined to believe may require an Archive & Install. When 10.5.5 came out, there were folks reporting some serious problems they had with the update, so I decided I'd not take a chance with a potentially troublesome update atop a potentially corrupted system. So I'll certainly likely wait out this update (which sounds like it's more troublesome than most) as well. But I've always wondered why Apple always offers a "combo" update in addition to the "standard" update. I've gotten the impression that folks always seem to believe that the combo is the preferred choice...that it somehow is more "complete" and less likely to cause the kinds of problems folks seem to run into with the standard updates. Comments? -- iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.4)
From: Nick Naym on 23 Dec 2008 12:25 In article arkayREMOVE-8A4F0E.11062723122008(a)news.houston.sbcglobal.net, aRKay at arkayREMOVE(a)qsl.net wrote on 12/23/08 12:06 PM: > In article <jollyroger-E915F8.01521223122008(a)news.individual.net>, > Jolly Roger <jollyroger(a)pobox.com> wrote: > .... .... >> >> I'm still waiting for the waters to settle a bit before I apply the >> latest update. And when i do, it'll definitely be the >> manually-downloaded Combo updater. > > I used the Software Update to get 10.5.6 and everything worked. I then > read there was a Combo updater so I downloaded it as I prefer to use > combo updater. This was when my problems started. The Combo updater > hosed my setup such that the Time Machine would no longer work. After > reading the Apple discussion group that others had the same issues, I > finally fixed the TM with some terminal commands. I then ran into the > recovery from sleep that is the subject of this discussion. > > If I had it to do over again I would use ONLY the software update and > would not use the Combo 10.5.6. JR, I suggest you avoid the Combo Now I'm _really_ confused! ;( -- iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.4)
From: Tom Stiller on 23 Dec 2008 14:23 In article <C5768874.28F4F%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote: > But I've always wondered why Apple always offers a "combo" update in > addition to the "standard" update. I've gotten the impression that folks > always seem to believe that the combo is the preferred choice...that it > somehow is more "complete" and less likely to cause the kinds of problems > folks seem to run into with the standard updates. > > Comments? My guess would be that since the Software Update is machine specific, and some users have more than one machine to maintain, it's far more convenient to download one "universal" update. It could turn out to be less of a load on Apple's servers, though that's not a given. -- Tom Stiller PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
From: Nick Naym on 23 Dec 2008 14:32 In article tom_stiller-0F9043.14232123122008(a)news.verizon.net, Tom Stiller at tom_stiller(a)yahoo.com wrote on 12/23/08 2:23 PM: > In article <C5768874.28F4F%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, > Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote: > >> But I've always wondered why Apple always offers a "combo" update in >> addition to the "standard" update. I've gotten the impression that folks >> always seem to believe that the combo is the preferred choice...that it >> somehow is more "complete" and less likely to cause the kinds of problems >> folks seem to run into with the standard updates. >> >> Comments? > > My guess would be that since the Software Update is machine specific, > and some users have more than one machine to maintain, it's far more > convenient to download one "universal" update. It could turn out to be > less of a load on Apple's servers, though that's not a given. Machine specific? The "standard" update is available as a download, just as the combo is. Are you saying that if you want to download the standard update, you need to select from among several different versions? -- iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.4)
From: Nick Naym on 23 Dec 2008 14:35
In article michelle-6460DF.11154223122008(a)mara100-84.onlink.net, Michelle Steiner at michelle(a)michelle.org wrote on 12/23/08 1:15 PM: > In article <C5768874.28F4F%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, > Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote: > >> But I've always wondered why Apple always offers a "combo" update in >> addition to the "standard" update. > > For those people who skip updates. You're still at 10.5.4; if there > wasn't a 10.5.6 combo update, you would first have to update to 10.5.5, > reboot, and then update to 10.5.6. > Ah! OK...thanks, Michelle. :) >> I've gotten the impression that folks always seem to believe that the >> combo is the preferred choice...that it somehow is more "complete" >> and less likely to cause the kinds of problems folks seem to run into >> with the standard updates. > > I don't know why they do. Besides the security component, what else does the combo include that the standard doesn't? Is it only the additional code to handle "update skippers?" -- iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.4) |