# 10.5.6 is here



## Satcomer (Dec 15, 2008)

Well on Monday December 15th Apple releases the 10.5.6 update. Here are the 10.5.6 Release Notes.

Lastly here is the 10.5.6 combo update. IMHO if you did a Standard Leopard upgrade originally you should use the "Combo" update. The main difference is the combo "replaces" files bring any 10.5.1 (or better) machine straight to 10.5.6. The Software Update (called the Delta update) and it only 'updates files" 9taking from 10.5.5 to 10.5.6. Traditionally applying the "Combo" update releved a lot of OS X troubles when updating.

The update is HUGE (over 370MB) and will restart you Mac twice, so be patient!!


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Dec 15, 2008)

Apple's 10.5.6 Combo updater page states that OS X 10.5.*1* is required:

http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/apple/macosx_updates/macosx1056comboupdate.html

Don't know if that's a typo, or if 10.5.0 users must first update to 10.5.1 before applying the 10.5.6 combo update.  Typically, I keep the latest combo updaters around for new installs of Mac OS X -- I can quickly bring a system up-to-speed in terms of updates by applying the combo updaters immediately after installing OS X clean.


----------



## Rhisiart (Dec 15, 2008)

Satcomer said:


> applying the "Combo" update releved a lot of OS X troubles when updating.


I have 10.5.5. Would I be better off downloading the combo or will the Delta update suffice?


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Dec 15, 2008)

I used the combo to go from 10.5.5 to 10.5.6, but then again, I always do.

I think either way is safe.


----------



## fryke (Dec 16, 2008)

The combo updater is _always_ the safer way to update. Also, it allows you to update other machines without having to download the updater again and again. I haven't heard of many problems with direct SU system updates recently, though. (But maybe that's because people have heard the call to use the combo updaters instead?)


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Dec 16, 2008)

If you want to read nay-sayers reports and problems a-plenty, versiontracker is always a good place:

http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/29147

Heh... but then again, versiontracker seems like a soapbox for panicky, jump-the-gun, doomsday reports.


----------



## Satcomer (Dec 16, 2008)

It seems to me most of the problems updating are Users that had some kind of third party plugin not working. When will Users ever learn is beyond me.


----------



## Doctor X (Dec 16, 2008)

I always find it funny when half the posters proclaim the fix the "bestest" thing ever while the other half claims it cause their Mac to explode.

So . . . should you repair permissions _before_ the update?

I did not do that.







*_Slowly steps away from computer_*

--J.D.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Dec 16, 2008)

I neither repair before nor after.

Since 10.5.6 (and all other updates specific to Mac OS X) require administrator privileges to run, unless a permission somehow got changed to "no access," it would be nearly impossible for the updater to fail due to an incorrect permission, or for the updater to change a permission such that your system would be rendered unusable.

Repairing permissions is one of those "voodoo" fixes that people use as a basic troubleshooting step, i.e., "Repair permissions and repair the disk before exclaiming that you have a problem," much like rebuilding the desktop was a "voodoo" fix in the OS 6/7/8/9 days to "fix" a number of problems.  Repairing permissions may fix an application failing to launch, but rarely has repairing permissions solved a real problem.

Permissions don't change by themselves, and disk errors don't cause permissions to change.  Kernel panics don't change permissions.  Hard powering down the computer doesn't change permissions.  The only time permissions will change is by you intentionally changing them, or by a flawed installer changing permissions incorrectly (as some 3rd party installers in the past have done, but next to none do now).


----------



## Doctor X (Dec 16, 2008)

As you know, there is a lot of "Voodoo" amongst computer users.    I first read HERE--not naming names--to "repair permissions" after an update.  "Must be true!  A Guru wrote it!"

--J.D.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Dec 16, 2008)

I know, I hear it everywhere (especially from that bastardization of a website, MacFixIt, which used to be reputable and accurate, but now is full of fluff, rumor, and just plain wrongness ever since c|net took over).

Hey, it doesn't hurt to run it before and after.  It doesn't hurt to repair permissions every time you install a piece of software.  It doesn't hurt to repair permissions 75 times a day, either, or, for that matter, every 1.5 minutes of computer use.  Will it do _anything_ to a smooth-running system?  Doubtful.

Repairing permissions will do absolutely squat to "speed up" your system, which is what a lot of people prescribe it for.  An incorrect permission won't slow your system down -- whatever relies on the permission will either work (in the case of a correct permission), or it might not work (in the case where the permission is incorrect)... it's impossible for an incorrect permission to cause something to work slower.

I think the people who prescribe repairing permissions as a "voodoo" or "cure all" have a basic misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of what a UNIX permission actually is, and what it can and can't affect.  They don't know what it does; they just know that sometimes, in certain situations, it can "fix" things.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing to repair permissions, or even a bad thing to do it at the sign of a problem.  It would just behoove users to know what the heck a UNIX-style permission is, and what they do.


----------



## Doctor X (Dec 16, 2008)

Considering it takes now about 30 minutes to do that on OS 10.5, I doubt it!

Writing of rumors I have followed a thread on defragging a HD under OS X . . . though I have to admit the details of the argument are above my understanding.  There has been no easy answer to "should I or should I not?" question.

Probably to that and to the Permissions question is: _are you having a problem?_

If not, what are you fixing?

--J.D.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Dec 16, 2008)

Yep, "defragging" a hard drive -- another case of the "voodoo" fix.

"I defragged my OS X hard drive and now there's a noticeable speedup of EVERYthing!"

Yeah, right.  That's called a "perceived" speed up.  You're expecting a speed up; you want a speed up; you're perceiving a speed up.  There is no speed up.

While defragging is good in some situations (multiple partitions, heavy audio/video editing with a lot of large disk writes and reads, etc.), for the normal OS X user that has one partition, it's never needed.  OS X does its own defragmentation, and by defragging manually, you're basically setting OS X back a step or two.  OS X is all, like, "Hey, I just moved those fragments of files over here so I can access them more quickly, and now you're moving them back over _there_.  Why you workin' against me, bud?"

I think a lot of proponents of defragging the system drive or that have perceived speed increases after defragging are Windows converts, where defragging is actually recommended by Microsoft.


----------



## Doctor X (Dec 16, 2008)

ElDiabloConCaca said:


> Yeah, right.  That's called a "perceived" speed up.  You're expecting a speed up; you want a speed up; you're perceiving a speed up.  There is no speed up.



Placebo effect for computers.  Yup!  Been there!  Not to hijack a thread on 10.5.6, but your description is the "gist" of the anti- to defragmentation.  One "pro"--who works for a company that has a defragmentation program!--had an explanation that there are certain small files that can get broken across blocks if you do not have enough room on your hard drive that can cause problems with OS X . . . I think!  Of course, that is near what you describe where you have basically a near full HD so OS X cannot put things where it needs to put them.


. . . I think. . . . 

--J.D.


----------



## Satcomer (Dec 18, 2008)

ElDiabloConCaca said:


> I know, I hear it everywhere (especially from that bastardization of a website, MacFixIt, which used to be reputable and accurate, but now is full of fluff, rumor, and just plain wrongness ever since c|net took over).



I could not agree more! To me C|Net even got worse once CBS took them over.


----------



## Mikuro (Dec 18, 2008)

ElDiabloConCaca said:


> While defragging is good in some situations (multiple partitions, heavy audio/video editing with a lot of large disk writes and reads, etc.), for the normal OS X user that has one partition, it's never needed.



Defragmenting can help immensely when virtual memory is used. This happens most on systems with bare-minimum RAM.

I'm an on-again, off-again proponent of defragmenting. I acknowledge that for most users these days it is much more trouble than it's worth, but it's not flat-out useless like many people insist. I've seen bad fragmentation on my own systems, to the point where I couldn't even play movies at full speed because the disk slowed it down so much.

It's absolutely not something to do as regular maintenance like on Windows, though. It's usually easy to tell when disk access is a bottleneck.

As for repairing permissions, I agree that it's not worth bothering on the effectiveness scale, but on the "how much of a jackass will I feel like if _that's_ the solution and I didn't do it?" scale, it's off the charts.  I think of repairing permissions as at worst a fine thing to do while you think of something _better_ to do.


----------



## Doctor X (Dec 18, 2008)

Well . . . *Mail* no longer picks up mail from Hotmail--the "fix" stopped working.  You can still send though.

*_Searches for Razor Blades and Starts Writing Emotional Poetry_*

--J.D.


----------



## Doctor X (Dec 18, 2008)

[*Vent-Mode* _Engaged_--Ed.] 

Right, so I posted the thing about a Security Warming from M$--see *Bob's Place*--at my usual "den of iniquity" and the guy who claims to be a PC tech-type responds that "thousands" of Apple users state this update has "destroyed" their computers.

Now, the guy is a good guy, but even I can tell he knows bovine excrement about computers.  Fans of the *Virus* thread will recognize him from comments I quoted and paraphrased.  Basically, because HE has not had a virus, a PC CANNOT get a virus or it is ALL the user's fault.  I passed on a challenge from Our Guru which he ran from.

So now he claims . . . I am not making this up . . . that this update can destroy your logic board.

[*Vent-Mode* _Disngaged_--Ed.] 

--J.D.


----------



## Satcomer (Dec 19, 2008)

Doctor X said:


> Well . . . *Mail* no longer picks up mail from Hotmail--the "fix" stopped working.  You can still send though.
> 
> *_Searches for Razor Blades and Starts Writing Emotional Poetry_*
> 
> --J.D.



Did you get the httpmail plugin 1.5.3 for 10.5.6 yet? As a long time OS X user you should know better that third party plugins and point OS X updates do not mix. So if you need a plugin for a point OS X update, wait for the third party developer to fix the plugin before updating. This should be common sense, even on 
Windows machines.


----------



## Doctor X (Dec 19, 2008)

Satcomer said:


> Did you get the httpmail plugin 1.5.3 for 10.5.6 yet? *As a long time OS X user you should know better* that third party plugins and point OS X updates do not mix. So if you need a plugin for a point OS X update, wait for the third party developer to fix the plugin before updating. *This should be common sense*, even on Windows machines.









--J.D.


----------

