Software update?
- Thread starter Sunnz
- Start date
nixgeek
Mac of the SubGenius! :-)
Delta Updaters go from the previous version to the next version only (Ex: 10.4.7->10.4.8, 10.4.2->10.4.3). Combo updaters can update from any 10.x.y release, meaning that if you have any version before 10.4.8, you can update to 10.4.8 with the 10.4.8 Combo Updater. You can't use a 10.4.8 Combo Updater to update from anything before version 10.4 though. That would require a purchase of version 10.4 installation discs.
nixgeek
Mac of the SubGenius! :-)
As far as I know, you don't format when using any of the updaters. It's never been an option for as long as I can remember, and I've played around with OS X since 10.0.
Just stumbled upon this thread again and can't help feeling bad about the fact that I, like so many others, became a mac users during the Tiger days. My dad owned a mac that had, I'd guess, 10.2 on it, but I really wish I had a chance to feel 10.0 and x.1. The devel of Mac OS X is indeed an interesting story, ArsTechnica has in it's Tiger review an in-dept description of just how new OS X is for each release. This system is making progress under the hood, wich is more than I can say about certain competitiors.
Well, but it'd be wrong anyway. If you look at how the combo updater works: It does _not_ replace components that weren't updated. You see: I'm not sure _why_ the delta updaters so often create problems. But comparing my call to use combo updaters to archive & reinstall is totally wrong, lurk. I'm not sure where you want to drive this discussion. It's wrong.
nixgeek
Mac of the SubGenius! :-)
The Ars guys (or rather, John Siracusa) really hit the nail on the head when it came to evaluating and reviewing Mac OS X since the early days. Heck, Mac OS X was even interesting to watch as it was being developed. While we were running our Mac OS Classic operating systems, we would hear stories about Rhapsody and would jump at the chance to see screenshots of the Developer Releases. Even seeing shots of NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP gave us joy since we knew that Rhapsody was being based on it.
If there's anyone to ask about NeXTSTEP, OPENSTEP, or Rhapsody, it's RacerX. Just ask him how many machines he's got running those operating systems. I believe he even has a version of Mac OS X 1.0 which was released before the Mac OS X you know of now. It didn't have Aqua and it looked a lot like the Classic Mac OS with larger icons. You would even notice some applications with NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP window decorations before they were actually officially moved over to the Finder window decorations! It was great.
No, I mean the first version that was based on Darwin, that didn't have Aqua, and that was released, as stated above, in 1999.
No, that's not correct either. I'm talking about Mac OS X Server, the first official realase of an operating system using the Darwin kernel. Nothing else.
lurk
Mitä?
My suspicion is that what we really have here is a bad case of confirmation bias and that is all. I have been listening to the mantra of "repair permissions + combo-install" for years and I still have not found a better explanation from its proponents than the Mac equivalent of sprinkling magic pixie dust. To be honest I don't actually care if it works or not, I care that it is offered as a solution to hapless users with no notion of if or why it will be beneficial.
You yourself said that "[you are] not sure _why_ the delta updaters so often create problems." One of the possible mechanisms that I heard for why this was is that the combo updaters in some way clean up the already installed updates, through fixing their permissions, replacing damaged files, or just tickling them in the right way in the amalgamated post-flight script. That is why I said that in some way running the combo updater is the moral equivalent to an archive and install, it is just resetting large hunks of the system. Keep in mind that this idea is based on a generous assumption that the combo updater was actually doing something more than the delta update. If, in fact, we have the case that the combo and delta should operate exactly the same because the combo does not go over and above, well isn't that even more damning of your position. Because then you are only saying that there have been more random errors in one version than the other--combo updaters are better out of pure luck and nothing more. (Assuming that there is even a measurable effect here at all, I really am more inclined to believe confirmation bias at this point myself.)
As far as what I am trying to do by arguing this, well I am trying to make the world a better place
I don't know what it is about the odd intersection of events in life but I have been coming up against lots of quackery in many contexts of late. This little bit of Mac homeopathy just happened to come along and I thought I might try to take a stand on this one. It certainly is not anything against you fryke, your tone sounds a bit like you think I am attacking you personally. I am not.I am also not against this on a philosophical level, a sane explication would even get me to go the combo route. Even an explication like "Bob, the engineer who packages up the updaters, has a bit of a drinking problem and he tends to do the combos in the morning when he is more sober." would be just fine by me. What I don't like is the faith-based approach to computer science.
OK I'll shut up for a bit now
lurk
Mitä?
A delta is a small change from one state to another. A delta update is one that moves you up one minor version while the combo includes all the deltas to date.
Now, I am not the most historically knowledgeable person here but as I recall there was one delta that did have problems. I don't think that it affected me personally but it did get some people. The problem is that if the bug was not the result of something related to the "deltaness" of the update it is not rational to avoid them. All updates could be dangerous -- you pays your money and you takes you chances.
Now, I am not the most historically knowledgeable person here but as I recall there was one delta that did have problems. I don't think that it affected me personally but it did get some people. The problem is that if the bug was not the result of something related to the "deltaness" of the update it is not rational to avoid them. All updates could be dangerous -- you pays your money and you takes you chances.
well, you may be right, but *if* my own statistics show me that users have much more problems with deltas than with combos, why should i tell them that it doesn't matter? only because i don't know the exact _reason_, i can still say that i see a tendency. plus:
1.) *IF* something goes wrong with a delta updater, it's a _good_ thing to try and re-update with the combo-updater.
2.) *IF* you have to update more than one machine or have to reinstall your own later on, you _will_ be happy to have kept the combo updater around.
You might call this all humbug and charlatanry, but to me it's mere common sense.
1.) *IF* something goes wrong with a delta updater, it's a _good_ thing to try and re-update with the combo-updater.
2.) *IF* you have to update more than one machine or have to reinstall your own later on, you _will_ be happy to have kept the combo updater around.
You might call this all humbug and charlatanry, but to me it's mere common sense.
I've wondered for a while whether it might not be that people who use combo updaters tend to be people who are following "safest update method" tutorials or instructions and thus also tend to do things like closing running applications, repairing permissions etc. when updating. If so, that would skew the statistics significantly.
On the other hand, if reinstalling with a combo updater in and of itself fixes problems resulting from delta updates, that seems more interesting. (At least provided that reinstalling the delta doesn't help.)
Also, is there any advantage in installing the combo to start with as opposed to installing the delta (for convenience) and then using the combo if problems follow? (Obviously if Apple really screw up the delta, there is, but presumably they could really screw up the combo instead.)
To clarify, is the suggestion that people use software update only to get a list of updates applicable only to OS updates proper? Is there any reason not to use it with, say, security updates, application updates (iPod, airport, QT etc.)? I know there are security concerns with automatic updates, but I take it that wasn't the worry prompting the suggestion here.
Thanks,
cfr
On the other hand, if reinstalling with a combo updater in and of itself fixes problems resulting from delta updates, that seems more interesting. (At least provided that reinstalling the delta doesn't help.)
Also, is there any advantage in installing the combo to start with as opposed to installing the delta (for convenience) and then using the combo if problems follow? (Obviously if Apple really screw up the delta, there is, but presumably they could really screw up the combo instead.)
To clarify, is the suggestion that people use software update only to get a list of updates applicable only to OS updates proper? Is there any reason not to use it with, say, security updates, application updates (iPod, airport, QT etc.)? I know there are security concerns with automatic updates, but I take it that wasn't the worry prompting the suggestion here.
Thanks,
cfr