# 10.1.1



## masternew (Nov 12, 2001)

Has anyone tried the 10.1.1 update that is going around garracho?, and if so can you tell me what kind of improvements it has?. 

Thanks


----------



## WoLF (Nov 12, 2001)

my friends computer screwed up after he tried installing it.

REAL bad. i suggest not installing it. although i have it on my carracho server, i dont plan on updating anytime soon unless i want  to blow up my computer or something like that.


----------



## Snyper M (Nov 12, 2001)

I took the risk and ran it just for kicks.  I think I can attribute my cd-rw not working to this update.  Nothing was mounting, the eject keys on the keyboard stopepd working etc.  Oher thna that nothing else went wrong, not liek that's a minor problem.  But it was easily fixed but reinstallign OSX form the 10.1 update cd.  It just overwrote the BSD layer I had screwed up and al lwas well in the world again.

*No reason to install this though*


----------



## themacko (Nov 12, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Snyper M _
> *Oher thna that nothing else went wrong, not liek that's a minor problem.  But it was easily fixed but reinstallign OSX form the 10.1 update cd.  It just overwrote the BSD layer I had screwed up and al lwas well in the world again.*



Looks like it messed up your keyboard, too.


----------



## swizcore (Nov 13, 2001)

Ive ran the the updates (first on nonessential partitions of course) I am now running 5m26 for all my computing with no problems at all. been running it for about  5 days. All is well.
The one oddity is that during the gray screen there is a moment when the spinning cursor is forzen but then begiins to spin again and boots normally. Luckily I dont reboot much 

Maybe it screwed up _my_ ekyboard too ! he h


----------



## Lazarus18 (Nov 13, 2001)

So is there any reason to go get this? So far it sounds like it has messed things up or at best kept things the same as in 10.1. Any changes in functionality or speed?


----------



## swizcore (Nov 13, 2001)

I have seen no noticeable improvement or negatives. Just that feeling of knowing youre running the latest. yknow.


----------



## simX (Nov 13, 2001)

You can get information both at www.railheaddesign.com and www.thinksecret.com.  I think both of these sites are more realistic than www.macosrumors.com.

As for my opinion, unless the pre-release update to OS X that you want to install is a major update, I recommend not installing it.  As you all have shown, there are usually little to no improvements and probably some problems that crop up with them.  So, please, we'll all thank you if you wait for 10.2 prerelease builds to infiltrate Carracho D), and install THAT, so we don't have to try and troubleshoot problems with OS X builds most of us don't have.


----------



## genghiscohen (Nov 13, 2001)

No big improvements, but no serious problems either.  I have had 2 or 3 Finder quits since installing 5M26, but they don't affect any other app.
The Read-Me says that the big improvements with this one are increased support for USB burners and printers.
I did notice that build 5M13 is also showing up in various places.  Maybe that's the one that hoses some systems.


----------



## cybergoober (Nov 13, 2001)

...


----------



## simX (Nov 13, 2001)

OS X 10.1.1 is out along with the Airport 2.0 software, both available via Software Update.

And the build is..... (drum roll please)..... 5M28!!!!  So ha, I beat all of you.


----------



## masternew (Nov 13, 2001)

Does anybody know if this uspposed added USB support, includes suport for the QUE! USB CD-RW??


----------



## i_m_nuts (Nov 13, 2001)

after installing the update my finder is much more snappy it does not behave like it used too the update has no side effect or anything like that


----------



## swizcore (Nov 13, 2001)

> _Originally posted by simX _
> *OS X 10.1.1 is out along with the Airport 2.0 software, both available via Software Update.
> 
> And the build is..... (drum roll please)..... 5M28!!!!  So ha, I beat all of you.  *



heres a good one... my software update says an error occurred during update checking!!! So there is one noticeable difference with the 5m26 update  errrrr


----------



## Arin (Nov 13, 2001)

I updated both a 333Mhz iMac, and a 867Mhz Quicksilver using software update, and I've found NO PROBLEMS AT ALL!!

The only thing I've noticed is you can now view "all headers", or "raw source" in Mail.app and the finder seems to be much snappier...  espically on the iMac.

-A


----------



## Arin (Nov 13, 2001)

Ohh and by the way the build that came from the software update is 5M28

-Arin


----------



## Arin (Nov 13, 2001)

Serial Number...

mine is still showing on the Quicksilver...


----------



## theCaptain (Nov 13, 2001)

My serial is still there.   Their must be something screwy about your config.


----------



## WoLF (Nov 13, 2001)

well now that the final is out, ive installed it. Its cool! no problems yet


----------



## GrBear (Nov 13, 2001)

Installed the installer update 1.0.. re-ran software update (w/o rebooting) and installed 10.1.1 (rebooted after update) without problems others have been mentioning.

I'm still wondering why it takes so freakin long to install updates.. the installer update took a good 15 minutes in it's "optimizing" phase.. 10.1.1 took at least 30 minutes doing it.

Sofar I haven't noticed any diffs other than the version number update.  Mabey they'll get around to adding proper SCSI support so Adaptec can make my Plextor CD-R useful again.. one of these days..

G4-500, 1G-RAM, 2x30G HD, Rage128Pro, PCI Radeon, (2) 17" Applevision monitors.


----------



## Captain Code (Nov 13, 2001)

> _Originally posted by GrBear _
> *Installed the installer update 1.0.. re-ran software update (w/o rebooting) and installed 10.1.1 (rebooted after update) without problems others have been mentioning.
> 
> I'm still wondering why it takes so freakin long to install updates.. the installer update took a good 15 minutes in it's "optimizing" phase.. 10.1.1 took at least 30 minutes doing it.
> ...



Yes, same here.  I want to know WHY it has to optimize everything.  I know it's prebinding stuff, but why does it have to do this(besides making it faster)?  OS9 didn't have anything like this.  Why did Apple build this into OSX if it makes it slower?


----------



## cLouD[x] (Nov 13, 2001)

To get back your serial number, you have to zap your PRAM. Hold Option-apple-P-R  three times when first booting.


----------



## SCrossman (Nov 14, 2001)

> _Originally posted by devonferns _
> *but why does it have to do this(besides making it faster)? *



You answered your own question.


----------



## pbrice (Nov 14, 2001)

I agree with SCrossman.  You give up a few short minutes (I mean you guys realize that the optimization takes just MINUTES) to have a snappier, better supported system all the time.

If Apple came to you and said, "Can I make your system run faster, including the Finder, better CD & DVD burning support, and support numerous other USB devices?"

You ask, "Well, how long is going to take?"

Apple, "Oh, just about 20 minutes to an half-hour."

You actually say, "No."

Apple (suprised), "Even though it's FREE?"


Anyway, I was thrilled to see 10.1.1 out already.  ANd thrilled to see that after it downloaded, Apple actually took the time to optimize my system, as well.  

Thanks Apple!


----------



## SCrossman (Nov 14, 2001)

What is the big deal with waiting while the optimization runs in the background as you continue working (or playing ) on your Mac?


----------



## iPenguin (Nov 14, 2001)

YAY! I can finally run OS X at millions of colors without experiencing incredible slowness!!!


----------



## iknownotwhoiam (Nov 14, 2001)

any time i add anything new to my desktop (folder/downloaded file/disk image) everything on my desktop decides to scatter and will not move back into its original position.  has this happened to anyone else?


----------



## Iuis (Nov 14, 2001)

I updated with Software updater SP..and on my PBG4 it does show the serial number...no problems at all


----------



## Captain Code (Nov 14, 2001)

> _Originally posted by SCrossman _
> *
> 
> You answered your own question. *



No, not really, cause my question was why is there anthing that has to be bound?  What's being pre-bound and why is there a need for the things that are being bound?  As I said before, OS9 didn't have it and it ran fast.


----------



## tismey (Nov 14, 2001)

OS X is built on a completely different foundation from previous versions of the OS, including OS 9. The UNIX innards of OS X are what make it loads more stable, and so-on and so forth, and as far as I understand it, prebinding is a *NIX thing that makes sure that all its bits and pieces are where the system thinks they should be pre-runtime (rather than having to locate them when you want to do something). There's no doubt someone who knows a lot more about UNIX who can explain it in more detail if you really want. It DOES speed things up, it's a good thing. Use the time to make a cup of coffee, or ring your mum or something...


----------



## SCrossman (Nov 14, 2001)

> _Originally posted by devonferns _
> *As I said before, OS9 didn't have it and it ran fast. *



OS X is a completely different beast than OS9. Prebinding is done to ensure the OS knows the location of the various files used for an app or the OS itself. The information is then cached so the files are bound together for quicker loading.

The biggest reason it is done is to increase performance, as you stated in your original question.

But I will digressÉ


----------



## Captain Code (Nov 14, 2001)

> _Originally posted by tismey _
> *OS X is built on a completely different foundation from previous versions of the OS, including OS 9. The UNIX innards of OS X are what make it loads more stable, and so-on and so forth, and as far as I understand it, prebinding is a *NIX thing that makes sure that all its bits and pieces are where the system thinks they should be pre-runtime (rather than having to locate them when you want to do something). There's no doubt someone who knows a lot more about UNIX who can explain it in more detail if you really want. It DOES speed things up, it's a good thing. Use the time to make a cup of coffee, or ring your mum or something... *



Yes, I do know that prebinding is a good thing in OSX but only because of the way OSX is written.  If the OS has to look for stuff when a program is launched, what happens in OS9?  I'm not complaining about the time it takes to do it either cause you don't even have to watch it, just continue on with whatever you want to do.  

All I'm trying to understand is what is it in OSX that makes prebinding necessary, when it's not in OS9.  

If you are right and OSX is searching for stuff when it's not prebound, why not make it more like OS9 so that it's not required?  Maybe it's too big of a task to do or something but I just want to know.


----------



## Captain Code (Nov 14, 2001)

> _Originally posted by SCrossman _
> *
> 
> OS X is a completely different beast than OS9. Prebinding is done to ensure the OS knows the location of the various files used for an app or the OS itself. The information is then cached so the files are bound together for quicker loading.
> ...



I KNOW THAT.  I'm not an idiot that thinks that it should be the same as OS9 or anything, but all I wanted to know is what part of OSX makes it different from OS9 with regards to prebinding.

What type of files are bound?  Preferences?  Shouldn't an application already know the location of any files that it uses?


----------



## Lazarus18 (Nov 14, 2001)

I installed 10.1.1 on my G4 just fine. But on my PB it's no go. The updater gives me an error message after download but before install. No problem, thinks I, I'll just d/l it manually. Do that at versiontracker, mount the disk image, and now whenever I try and run the .pkg it opens the window and then unexpectedly quits. Any thoughts?


----------



## ulrik (Nov 14, 2001)

To make it simple:
In OS 9, Applications had most of their needed libraries either bound into their code or they got them from  system extensions.
"Libraries" might not be the correct term under OS 9, but I'll use it to make things easier. I don't know if you are a programmer, so I will try to explain it. I do this because I want to help you, not because I think you are an idiot.
When you code something, you use libraries. It's like a real library. You use the knowledge of others. Easy example: you are writing an app which can open files. Normally, you would have to write your own methods/functions to make the graphic card draw a window, you handle any mouse/keyboard events in the "open file" window, to analyze the file system etc. etc. This takes time. So, what else can you do? You pull a book out of your library (in this case the book would be a function) and you use it's knowledge (the "actions" the function executes) to do this file opening. Result? You are saving time, you are securing that it works (since in this case the functions have been already written by Apple) and all applications share the same "open file" functionality, so debugging is easier, the final user finds it easier (since each app more or less has the same "open file" dialog) etc.
Now, there are two possibilities when you code: either include these libraries static. This means they are "hardcoded" into your application, making it big. The other approach is that you dynamically load these functions from system libraries. You might know that Windows uses files with the ending .dll, which is exactly this, it's a dynamic link library. So any app which uses our "open file" dialog executes a function withing this library to display the window and make it work with the app.
It saves space since all apps are smaller, they share the same functionality over one file, a system library. These libraries have to be present in the RAM when the application runs, everything else would be slow. So once the application starts, it searches all libraries it needs, loads them into the RAM, and the starts running. What the prebinding does is making some kind of list where the needed libraries for each app are, making app launch times faster. If the prebindings are out of date, the application would start to search the library all over you harddrive before it is able to start running.

This is a VERY basic explaination, and I know that there are "errors" in it, I just wanted to explain what this prebinding stuff is and how important it is.


----------



## strobe (Nov 14, 2001)

Open the package and you will see a .pkg which you can install


----------



## Captain Code (Nov 14, 2001)

> _Originally posted by ulrik _
> *To make it simple:
> In OS 9, Applications had most of their needed libraries either bound into their code or they got them from  system extensions.
> "Libraries" might not be the correct term under OS 9, but I'll use it to make things easier. I don't know if you are a programmer, so I will try to explain it. I do this because I want to help you, not because I think you are an idiot.............. *



Thanks for the explanation. 
Yes I am a programmer so I understand now what a program is searching for.

The reason I made a point of saying that I'm not an idiot was because people kept saying that OSX is different from OS9.  Yes I already know that, and now I have an explanation for what exactly the prebinding does.


----------



## slur (Nov 14, 2001)

Prebinding in Mac OS X only applies to Mach-O binaries which are written in Cocoa or derivatives of Cocoa and Carbonized applications that run through a Mach-O proxy.

Run-time "static dynamic binding" resolves the function calls of the program at _load time_ so that they refer directly to the library functions in RAM. C++ "virtual functions" are resolved in this manner.

The Objective-C language supports a special property called "Dynamic Dynamic Binding," which basically means that the actual function to be called in a library or program module is only very loosely determined when the program is built, so the actual function called and its location in RAM are determined at run-time. This means, for example, that you can call a method named "MyMethod" for any object that has such a method, and you don't have to decide what kind of object will call it until run-time. This is similar to what C++ "virtual functions" accomplish, but far more flexible. Of course it also makes the runtime code a little slower, which is where prebinding comes in.

For more on Dynamic Binding check out this link.

Prebinding is necessary to speed things up in MacOS X not only due to the property of Dynamic Binding, but because there are complex chains of dependency between various libraries, so seeking the library the program needs, followed by the library the library needs, plus the library that _that_ library needs... can be a hassle time after time. Not to mention that once the system locates all the necessary libraries it must load them in order of dependency, which is the reverse of the search order.

To learn a little more about prebinding go to the terminal and enter:

*man redo_prebinding*


----------



## Captain Code (Nov 14, 2001)

> _Originally posted by slur _
> *Prebinding in Mac OS X only applies to Mach-O binaries which are written in Cocoa or derivatives of Cocoa and Carbonized applications that run through a Mach-O proxy.
> 
> Run-time "static dynamic binding" resolves the function calls of the program at load time so that they refer directly to the library functions in RAM. C++ "virtual functions" are resolved in this manner.................... *



Thanks for another great explanation.  I'm familiar with dynamic binding and static binding.  I think there's another way to do it in C++ but I'm not sure how as I'm only a second year computer programmer student.

I wouldn't have thought that dynamic binding would have such an impact on application launch times.


----------



## Lazarus18 (Nov 14, 2001)

> _Originally posted by strobe _
> *Open the package and you will see a .pkg which you can install *



What exactly am I looking for here? I see Contents if I open the .pkg in the terminal, and Resources inside of that. Nothing I know to run. 

The other oddity? My terminal is now defaulting to zsh. It used to be tcsh, which I prefer. How do I set what it starts up in?


----------



## edX (Nov 14, 2001)

and just as a footnote to prebinding, some of you might want to go to macupdate or similar and get Xoptimize which will prebind all your third party apps. It took 363.79 secs to prebind 918 files. Increase in launch time is particularly noticable with browsers & other large apps. I had no noticible problems afterwards.


----------



## ulrik (Nov 15, 2001)

or just type "update_prebinding -verbose -root /" into the terminal. It will even show you what it is doing at the moment (-verbose) and gives you way more information than XOptimize.


----------

