10.5.6 update causes wake from sleep problems
in [Mac Systems]
|
From: Tom Stiller on 23 Dec 2008 15:24 In article <C576A701.28F7E%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote: > 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? The "standard" update is not machine specific, but if you use the Software Update application, it downloads and installs updates to only those components currently installed which require an update. That's what the "Checking for new software..." is all about. -- Tom Stiller PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
From: Nick Naym on 23 Dec 2008 15:32 In article tom_stiller-B497AB.15242923122008(a)news.verizon.net, Tom Stiller at tom_stiller(a)yahoo.com wrote on 12/23/08 3:24 PM: > In article <C576A701.28F7E%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, > Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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? > > The "standard" update is not machine specific, but if you use the > Software Update application, it downloads and installs updates to only > those components currently installed which require an update. That's > what the "Checking for new software..." is all about. That (how the Software Update app download differs from the Standard and Combo updates) was going to be my next question! Thanks, Tom. -- iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.4)
From: Jolly Roger on 23 Dec 2008 15:39 In article <C576A7BB.28F80%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote: > 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?" Not just code - mainly files - and lots of them. The combo updater is a delivery mechanism for every single file that has changed in every single update since the initial operating system release. Because it replaces so many base files in the system, it has a much greater chance of repairing damage resulting from files that have become misplaced, corrupt, or whatever else. The closer you get to wiping the slate clean with an OS update, the less potential problems there are. With incremental updates, Apple has to make more assumptions about the state of the system. -- Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR
From: Jolly Roger on 23 Dec 2008 15:43 In article <arkayREMOVE-8A4F0E.11062723122008(a)news.houston.sbcglobal.net>, aRKay <arkayREMOVE(a)qsl.net> wrote: > 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. What were the symptoms of the problem - did you post here about them in another thread? > After > reading the Apple discussion group that others had the same issues, I > finally fixed the TM with some terminal commands. Which commands, specifically, fixed this problem? > I then ran into the > recovery from sleep that is the subject of this discussion. But that was simply the PMU/SMU needing to be reset, wasn't it? We haven't establishd that the update specifically *caused* that problem - only that the problem coincided with the update, right? > 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 I'm afraid I'm still going to stick with my practice of installing the combo updates for now. I'll have a full SuperDuper backup handy, just in case, when I apply the update to my own machine. If all goes well, I'll deploy to the rest of the machines I manage. -- Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me. E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts. JR
From: Nick Naym on 23 Dec 2008 16:05
In article jollyroger-1D534B.14391723122008(a)news.individual.net, Jolly Roger at jollyroger(a)pobox.com wrote on 12/23/08 3:39 PM: > In article <C576A7BB.28F80%nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com>, > Nick Naym <nicknaym@[remove_this].gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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?" > > Not just code - mainly files - and lots of them. The combo updater is a > delivery mechanism for every single file that has changed in every > single update since the initial operating system release. Because it > replaces so many base files in the system, it has a much greater chance > of repairing damage resulting from files that have become misplaced, > corrupt, or whatever else. The closer you get to wiping the slate clean > with an OS update, the less potential problems there are. With > incremental updates, Apple has to make more assumptions about the state > of the system. Does that suggest that I might try using the current Combo update, before embarking on an Archive and Install, as a potential means of addressing any corruption my system may have that could be causing the various problems I've been experiencing these past few months? -- iMac (24", 2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, 320 GB HDD) � OS X (10.5.4) |