# 10.1.3 now avalable via software update



## Ralph J. (Feb 19, 2002)

Update 10.1.3 delivers enhancements that improve the reliability of Mac OS X applications, important security features and includes new and updated support for a variety of Digital Hub peripheral devices. Specific updates include:

CD Disc Recording Peripherals:

- Expanded support for QPS, EZQuest, LaCie, Yamaha, MCE Technologies and Sony devices

Image Capture and iPhoto:

- Improved support for several digital camera models from Canon, Kodak and Sony

Graphics and OpenGL Improvements:

- DVD Playback on external VGA displays on PowerBook G4

- PowerBook video mirroring will be on by default when connecting to a new display

- Improvements for iTunes when the full screen visualizer is used

Networking and Security Improvements:

- Login authentication support for LDAP and Active Directory services

- OpenSSH version 3.0.2p1

- WebDAV support for Digest authentication

- Mail includes support for SSL encryption


----------



## ulrik (Feb 19, 2002)

Yipie!!! Already downloading it    

Hopefully, my digicam is supported this time!!!


----------



## googolplex (Feb 19, 2002)

downloading!


----------



## fryke (Feb 19, 2002)

aren't those the nice days? 

and then, when it's installed and everything is fine, we can go back to work. no? no. there's mac os x 10.2 rumours. when will it be there? march 24th, on its birthday? or macworld july? hmm... (installing 10.1.3 right now.)


----------



## dlookus (Feb 19, 2002)

Lexar USB compact flash reader still doesn't work. dang.


----------



## fryke (Feb 19, 2002)

hmm... download doesn't work here. it finishes but doesn't install and then wants to redownload. if i had a modem connection i'd be VERY angry by now (after three downloads or 17 megs). rebooting, trying again (the first three times i only logged out and in again as root after my normal user failed).

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.


----------



## ddma (Feb 19, 2002)

Guess what?? I feel scrolling is much smooth on my iBook 600/640MB!!!!!!! That's what I feel after using IE to browse web pages!!!


----------



## ksuther (Feb 19, 2002)

Hmmm, yay. Haven't figured if it made things faster yet


----------



## fryke (Feb 19, 2002)

hey! now it went alright... 

scrolling faster? did you smoke anything? or have you cleansed your mouse?

well, i'll know when my TiBook has rebooted. ... let's see...

the small hanging rainbow cursor is still there... booting looks the same and takes the same time... my files are gone!!! no, j/k... my desktop looks the same... checking build number: 5Q45.

okay. now scrolling a large page in ie. hmm... wow. i guess you're right! strange, eh? is it the yamaha cd-burner support? the new drivers for digicams? or does this go under 'several improvements'?


----------



## ddma (Feb 19, 2002)

yea yea, i'll say, it might be because they have improved quartz, that's why they have mentioned iTune viz improvement.


----------



## ddma (Feb 19, 2002)

Oh!!!! Yea... resizing is faster either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i luv u apple as well as i love my bf!!


----------



## martinatkinson (Feb 19, 2002)

Hello!

I must be the only one who has not downloaded it  I am still in 10.1 instead of 10.1.2 or 10.1.3 like I could be.  I will just wait untill 10.2 is released and make a major upgrade.  Part of this is because I only have a 56K modem and it would take me days to get an update (it took me over a week to get the dev tools)

Have a great day!

Albert


----------



## rinse (Feb 19, 2002)

well... there goes my 9 days of uptime.


----------



## RyanLang (Feb 19, 2002)

This sucks.  In 10.1.3 I can't set my resolution any higher than 1024 X 768 without getting weird white lines on the sides of my monitor.  I seems these lines cut off some of the sides of the screen too.  This happened in earlier versions of 10.1 when I would restart my computer, but when I switched from the white lined 1152 X 870 back to 10 X 7 then back to 1152, it would be fixed and would fit the screen perfectly at 1152 X 870.  With 10.1.3, however, this is not the case and switching the resolutions does not fix this at all.  So, I am forced into 10 X 7.  This is hard for me because I am really used to 1152 and as you'd imagine, everything seems huge.  By the way, I have a Viewsonic A70 monitor.  Any ideas?  Thanks     --Ryan


----------



## ddma (Feb 19, 2002)

Another noticeable faster item: reading PDF file in Acrobat Reader 5.05!!


----------



## ddma (Feb 19, 2002)

well... i just found that after install Mac OS X 10.1.3, it changed my colour to Thousands... that's why all the things was faster!!!! oh... no... now... using Millions again and feel just like the same...


----------



## homer (Feb 19, 2002)

Dadgum it, my Lacie 16x10x40 U&I (using USB) STILL won't work.  Come on Apple, what gives?


----------



## kenny (Feb 19, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ddma _
> *well... i just found that after install Mac OS X 10.1.3, it changed my colour to Thousands... that's why all the things was faster!!!! oh... no... now... using Millions again and feel just like the same...
> 
> *



I was wondering about that. I thought I had just imagined the switch to thousands, and that I must have done it myself @ some point in the recent past but forgot. Still, even at millions, it feels faster, although there's still a ways to go yet. Good to see improvement either way...


----------



## Carlo (Feb 19, 2002)

is it any faster???


----------



## ZeroAltitude (Feb 20, 2002)

Well, 10.1.3 is *exactly* what I would expect from a third sub-point update -- it's solid, it's benign, and it shows some improvements.  I'm eager to retest my Kodak camera.  I *seem* to notice an upgrade in window resizing (my cruel benchmark is to rapidly resize my IE windows with lots of stuff on the screen).  I say, good show.  I'm pinning some real speed-improvement hopes on 10.2, though I have to say, 10.1.3 ought not be criticized.  I mean, have you used XWindows/KDE or CDE lately?


----------



## hazmat (Feb 20, 2002)

Yeah, video definitely seems to be odd.  I run 1152x870, and it set it back to 1024x768.  No problem after resetting it.  But when I log in, it shows the default background with the login screen as I guess 800x600, and the rest plain blue.  Bad.  Never saw that before 10.1.3.  But otherwise, I see no difference.  My video problem that has always been present is still here.  Display Properties loses my monitor settings on reboot, and will only go to 800x600.  Takes playing around to get it back.  One way is to reboot into OS 9, then back into X.  The other is to have a non-bootable CD in the drive and hold down 'c' when restarting.  More often than not that does the trick.


----------



## Lazarus18 (Feb 20, 2002)

still no support for my freaking Sony Spressa USB CD-R. Very annoying.

However, system preferences seems to open up much more quickly now.


----------



## edX (Feb 20, 2002)

system prefs does open much more quickly. and guess what everybody. there is a whole new set of the extra language support updates sitting right behind 10.1.3 when you run software update again 

the nicest improvement i have seen so far is that the mouse for the graphire2 tablet now works like it should. Hooray, now i can switch back and forth when my hand gets ired of one position or the other.


----------



## fryke (Feb 20, 2002)

sys prefs opens faster? yes, but it did that since 10.1.0 whenever you redid the 'optimizing' thing (prelinking). so NO 10.1.3 does NOT boot sysprefs faster than 10.1.

but ie window resizing/scrolling is definitely faster.


----------



## ulrik (Feb 20, 2002)

Sysprefs open in half a bounce here, regardless if they have been opened before or not. This is faster than before, if you ask me. 

And I am running update_prebinding every night, so it can't be that...


----------



## dsnyder (Feb 20, 2002)

The Active Directory login authentication is intriguing.  Anyone know how to make it work?


----------



## changomarcelo (Feb 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by dlookus _
> *Lexar USB compact flash reader still doesn't work. dang. *



Hey! dlookus! What USB reader do you have? I bought a Pretect dual USB reader for compact flash and smart media. It didn´t work in OS X so I wrote an e-mail to them.
I was disapointed because I had no answer...
But yesterday night, I know something strange was happening... my e-mail was taking too long to download -and I never receive big mails through that account- and suddenly.... There were there!! The people at Pretec sent me the drivers by mail!!!! I also think they wrote them just for me    because the release date is the same day I wrote the mail 
Well, now the USB reader works fine in OS X. And that´s the end of the story!
If you want, I could send you the drivers by mail, just for you to try.


----------



## twister (Feb 20, 2002)

My system seems much faster. Maybe it's just me but things seem to launch in less time.  YEA.

Twister


----------



## cybergoober (Feb 20, 2002)

When I click and hold (or option-click) the Finder Dock icon it now displays "Application Not Responding" instead of "No Windows" like it used to (ala simX's avatar). Can anyone else confirm? I used to like to have that little tag on my screenshots I would post on other forums. This sucks!!

Well, that's really my only gripe .


----------



## dlookus (Feb 20, 2002)

> When I click and hold (or option-click) the Finder Dock icon it now displays "Application Not Responding" instead of "No Windows" like it used to (ala simX's avatar).



I had this problem before, but it just went away after a while.


----------



## Sogni (Feb 20, 2002)

I didn't notice any difference myself...
But I had already done things to my Mac that makes it seem much faster before I did the update - so maybe that's why I didn't notice?

It might just be my imagination - but I can swear installing Duality and setting my "theme" to Silverfox has sped up the interface overall. It seems that the white horizontal bars and transparancy eats up a bit of speed.


----------



## Sogni (Feb 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by cybergoober _
> *When I click and hold (or option-click) the Finder Dock icon it now displays "Application Not Responding" instead of "No Windows" like it used to (ala simX's avatar). Can anyone else confirm? I used to like to have that little tag on my screenshots I would post on other forums. This sucks!!
> 
> Well, that's really my only gripe . *



It works fine for me...
And you meant control-click, right? Option-click switched to that app and hid the rest! I didn't know that one! Cool!


----------



## cybergoober (Feb 20, 2002)

Yeah, I meant control-click.

[EDIT]OK, now for some reason it's working again. I had logged out, force quit the Finder and it was still displaying Application Not Responding. Now for no apparent reason it says No Windows again. Sweet.


----------



## Zero (Feb 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by dsnyder _
> *The Active Directory login authentication is intriguing.  Anyone know how to make it work? *



I'd like to know too. I'm mucking around in NetInfo and Directory Services to see if there's anything of use.


----------



## Matrix Agent (Feb 20, 2002)

iTunes Burner Support = No More OS 9

Yes.


----------



## TommyWillB (Feb 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ddma _
> *well... i just found that after install Mac OS X 10.1.3, it changed my colour to Thousands... that's why all the things was faster!!!! oh... no... now... using Millions again and feel just like the same... *


Ha! I bet they thought we would not notice!

I think I'll keep mine in 1,000's for a while since it is faster... If Adobe ever bothers to get us PhotoShop, then I'll worry about putting it back to millions...


----------



## senne (Feb 21, 2002)

Windows resizing in IE isn't faster at all..... and scrolling neither. Why me?


SENNE


----------



## senne (Feb 21, 2002)

Oh wait! It DOES go faster!!!

SENNE


----------



## hazmat (Feb 21, 2002)

Nothing in that respect seems faster/different to me.  Maybe it's because I have a G4 867 with a fast video card?


----------



## edX (Feb 21, 2002)

well, i want to take back what i said about system prefs being faster. the next day it was back to normal and has remained that way. very odd. and while i was never one to complain about window resizing ( ithought that was as picky of a complaint as i have ever heard), it does seem to be improved with this update. I am going to try my dvd player a little later to check that. i will be bummed if that doesn't work. I have 2 dvd's i bought last summer that i still haven't watched


----------



## hazmat (Feb 21, 2002)

Ed, I wonder if people get deceived about things being faster after updates because you restart your system, so memory and such is cleared out?


----------



## julguribye (Feb 21, 2002)

to be honest, i didn't notice a thing...the screen wasn't even set to thousands. this has to be the most minimal update Apple has ever relased to osx (not due to the filesize though)


----------



## edX (Feb 21, 2002)

ken, I think you have a good point about the rebooting thing. I tend to notice a temporary acceleration whenever I do it. Although the huge speed differences that osx exhibited after os 9.2.2 came out and then 10.1 was very real !!

I have noticed all my browsers being a little less stable after this update and expect to see lots of little updates to these and other programs over the the next few weeks. It should be some fun days ahead.

what i am really wondering is if apple did enough with this issue for some of the 3rd parties that have been promising osx compatibility to finally deliver.


----------



## Dradts (Feb 21, 2002)

the windows still jump around when changing too fast between applications  i hope apple will fix this bug soon. its getting on my nerves...


----------



## mindbend (Feb 21, 2002)

I notice no changes on iMac DV 400. Will update tomorrow at work on DP G4 1 gig. I'm not expecting much.

I continue to be sorely disappointed in OS X's graphics layer. I'm beating a dead horse, but it's a joke. Calling it slow is being generous. I am fortunate enough to have the best machine Apple makes and IE, AI10, InDesign 2...make it every program in X runs like crap in terms of window resizing, zooming and grabber hand moving to name a few. 

Apple had better freaking get this fixed, it's embarassing. I am very seriously thinking of going back to OS 9 because of this nonsense. And please, those of you you post replies about how it seems perfectly acceptable to you clearly aren't doing much production work where you need every ounce of speed you can get. I am dumbfounded by how people can continue to defend backward progress.

Maybe in six months or a year when Apple fixes this crap subsystem I will be converted, but until then it is poor, poor, poor.

I would accept in the short term the non-live window resize (outline instead of actual content), but that's not a user selectable option.

Argh! (in pirate voice)

Here's a challenge, can anyone name me one single app that runs faster in X? I can't think of one and I've got a bunch of em.

-----------------

Note that there is hope. Final Cut runs like a dream. Everything about it is pleasantly snappy and rendering smokes. Very nice. Windows manipulation very fast also. There is hope.

Also, games on the new DP with the GeForce card run great. It CAN be done!


----------



## edX (Feb 21, 2002)

> Note that there is hope. Final Cut runs like a dream. Everything about it is pleasantly snappy and rendering smokes. Very nice. Windows manipulation very fast also. There is hope.
> 
> Also, games on the new DP with the GeForce card run great. It CAN be done!



yes it can. so why do you continue to harp on this as apple's fault when it seems apparent that the problem lies in the talents of the developers? Just because microsoft doesn't make a browser that is worth having is not Apple's fault!!

one thing that is far better in osx - firewire devices. they load quicker and work smoother. This may not be an app per se, but it certainly effects the way some apps work. and makes running apps off an external hd a nice reality. I really can't tell the difference from my internal hd. and it isn't like that in os 9.


----------



## mindbend (Feb 21, 2002)

I keep harping cuz I just dropped $3000 for suck-ass Quartz speed, that's why!  And as for Apple's responsibility vs. the developers' responsibility, something tells me something is very wrong when not a single developer (Adobe, MYOB, Macromedia, Microsoft, Corel, Omnigroup, etc.) can make an X app that seems to run crisply. (Reminder:I'm ONLY talking about the graphics layer, not launch speed, rendering, calculations, etc.). 

Firewire is great, you're right, I love it in X. Almost instant mounting is awesome! And very fast transfer speeds. Nice. Here's other stuff I love about X:
"smarter" app launching via extensions
built in server
it looks awesome
much better navigation options (now give my damn spring loaded folders back plz!)
dock is very efficient
Apple's software lineup is very well integrated
process killer, though I should'nt ever have to use it
it's just "cleaner"
easier to get where I need to, things are more logically placed
I can finally have multiple network protocols at once
auto-launching apps like dvd player, itunes, photo capture, etc.--smooth


But here's another thing slower in X that is all Apple's fault, network access. It takes me about half a minute to get fully mounted on our Win2K server including Command+K to bring up connection window, then login, then mount. OS 9 does this all in like 3 seconds. Lame. I thought X was supposed to be a network OS! Fortunately, the more important part, network transfer speeds are great. I can get slightly faster speeds (10%+-) from OS X than from our PC laptop connecting to the Win2K server.

I know my words sound harsher here in print, as all tongue-in-cheek and subtle sarcasm can be misconstrued for simple rudeness, but my point still remains. Until someone shows me an app that runs as well or better in X in the graphics layer, I will continue to harp on this. Non X users deserve to know the weakness of this otherwise great OS. Also, I want to keep the pressure on Apple in case any of them are watching.


----------



## hazmat (Feb 22, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *
> yes it can. so why do you continue to harp on this as apple's fault when it seems apparent that the problem lies in the talents of the developers? Just because microsoft doesn't make a browser that is worth having is not Apple's fault!!
> *



Good point, Ed.  More and more I am demanding Cocoa apps for my own use.  In almost every way they are smoother and better than the cluster fuck that the majority of Carbon apps seem to be.

OS 9 may be faster in a lot of ways, but I am still really happy with OS X.  Coming from a UNIX and NT background, I still find OS 9 one of the most pathetic OS's I have ever used.


----------



## hazmat (Feb 22, 2002)

> _Originally posted by mindbend _
> *But here's another thing slower in X that is all Apple's fault, network access. It takes me about half a minute to get fully mounted on our Win2K server including Command+K to bring up connection window, then login, then mount. OS 9 does this all in like 3 seconds. Lame. I thought X was supposed to be a network OS! Fortunately, the more important part, network transfer speeds are great. I can get slightly faster speeds (10%+-) from OS X than from our PC laptop connecting to the Win2K server.
> *



Are you talking about Appletalk?  Not sure about that.  What is awesome about OS X is built-in SMB connectivity.  At my old job, I shared a directory on my NT desktop.  Mounted it from my OS X machine no prob.


----------



## mindbend (Feb 22, 2002)

hazmat

I am not very network literate, could you briefly explain what SMB is and maybe how I can use it to log on to our Win2K server?

Would this help the fact that I can't use long file names via X on the server?

Is this something that has to be set up on the server or on my Mac? Both?

Thanks!


----------



## mindbend (Feb 22, 2002)

hazmat

you mention cocoa apps being better. i don't necessarily dispute this, but where are they? what are you using that is so great? seriously, not being a smartass.

Omniweb is still apiece of junk, albeit a very nice looking piece of junk (piece of junk is here on out defined as "suck ass slow graphically").

Apple's own flagship products aren't cocoaized AFAIK. Actually, I'm only speaking of FCP, I really don't know about the rest. Is Appleworks, iTunes, QT, iDVD, etc. cocoaized? 

I'm just looking for examples so I can see if and where this Quartz thing has any hope.


----------



## edX (Feb 22, 2002)

mindbend - i have to say i don't know about big professional graphics programs.  I still think it must have something to do with the developers and lack of really understanding how osx works yet.

for an example of how graphics can work differently let me use my browser of choice these days - icab.

if you download icab and run it 'right out of the box' you are going to see a mess. it is slow, sloppy and not very visually appealling. But if you start by unchecking css2 in the prefs it goes faster and renders better.  Then hunt around their web site by going to dwonloads and then in small print in the menu frame there is an option to get alternate icon sets. Download a bunch of them. and play around with the different ones. some slow the thing down to a crawl. I found one that puts lightening into it. I can't remember which one but i think it was a multicolored aqua theme. I can take a grab and post if you really want to try this. 

the point being, that just the different icons effected the speed of the browser. such a little thing and such a big difference. I get speeds with my imac 400 and my icab that are close to macs with twice the mhz and mozilla - another good example of trimmed graphics speed i have heard. 

I have also found that most apps prefs are set to some lowly common denominator to make sure that everyone who switches from windows can make them work or something. playing with prefs can often put some zip back into your apps. 

and while i don't know your habits, i also find it useful to remind folks to do a defragmentation and optimization regularly. people seem to think that osx doesn't need it, but i can see a big difference everytime i do it. I would think that big graphics files use lots of temp files which are big offenders in the fragmentation dept. you might want to think about that as well.


----------



## hazmat (Feb 22, 2002)

> _Originally posted by mindbend _
> *hazmat
> 
> I am not very network literate, could you briefly explain what SMB is and maybe how I can use it to log on to our Win2K server?
> ...



I know there have been other threads about this before, but I don't feel like searching for them.   SMB (Server Memory Block - I think), is the standard protocol for file sharing on Windows machines.  Samba is an open source version of SMB.  I installed it on a Sun at my old job.  OS X includes it; in fact, I think 10.0 didn't even have Appletalk, just SMB?  I believe that DAVE is SMB for the Mac.  So, to connect to a Windows share, you don't need Appletalk at all.  The syntax is something like smb://hostname/share_name .  Or replace hostname with IP.  Works great right out of the box.  It's been a while, but IIRC, SMB seems to have some limitation on filename sizes, at last I think it's SMB.  I think I ended up FTPing the files to not have the name truncated.  Also, I learned here later on that it is a on-way thing; client only.  If you want to share via SMB, you need Samba or the like.  I believe there is a version specifically for OS X.

Hope this helps....


----------



## hazmat (Feb 22, 2002)

> _Originally posted by mindbend _
> *hazmat
> 
> you mention cocoa apps being better. i don't necessarily dispute this, but where are they? what are you using that is so great? seriously, not being a smartass.
> *



The Cocoa apps I am using are Adium, Omniweb (sometimes - the 4.1 beta is really good, but not there yet), Mail, TextEdit, and more that I can't think of at the moment.  I think iDVD 2 might be.  The following is from my limited knowledge of programming, which is very limited.  Basically Cocoa, taken from NeXT, has a lot more included in the API, where in Carbon there is simply guidelines, which most developers seem to ignore, making things a mess.  In Cocoa apps, there are things you can count on to be there all the time, since it's built-in.  The one example I always use is keystrokes.  Shooting the insert point to the beginning or end of the line, etc.  IF it exists in Carbon apps, it's totally not consistent.  These are included with Cocoa, and any Unix person will appreciate them.  The Emacs commands on shell command lines.  Coming from Unix and Windows, I find it very difficult to move around in non-Cocoa apps' text fields.  The OS X Missing Manual has 6 pages on why Cocoa is so great.

Anyway, to me they just seem to work better overall.  Might just be subjective.


----------



## fryke (Feb 22, 2002)

It's not that easy. Basically they're just very, very different. Cocoa stems from NeXT/OpenStep (later 'yellow box') and Carbon is a slimmed down version of the Classic Mac OS APIs.

According to several developers the goals you can achieve are very much the same. The difference lies in the approach. Coding something completely from scratch? -> Cocoa. It's much easier and faster. Switching a project from Classic Mac OS to Mac OS X? -> Carbon.

The goal is of course having all apps as Cocoa apps.

Lately the Apple HI Devs Mailing list has been talking about how many 'old' Mac developers are not used to the graphics model of Mac OS X yet and how they tend to do 'too much', so the computer has to draw things two or three times instead of once. Quartz is layer-based. I guess Cocoa devs are used to this (or more used to this) coming from NeXT or OpenStep.


----------



## hazmat (Feb 22, 2002)

Thanks for the explanation.  I think that Limewire is a great example of crap for Mac OS.


----------



## homer (Feb 22, 2002)

SMB = Server Message Block.  And configuring Samba server for X so that my PC can talk to my Mac has been nothing but a huge pain.  But then, I'm not too up on the Unix file permissions business, so maybe that's my problem--but shouldn't that be built into the Samba config tool?  Anyhoo, it would make my day if Apple would put an easy-to-use SMB server into 10.2.


----------

