Mac OS X 10.6.2 update out on the prowl (update: Atom support is gone)
By Ross Miller 
posted Nov 9th 2009 8:33PM
posted Nov 9th 2009 8:33PM
Update: We just installed it -- it took forever and a day on one of our machines, and sped by reasonably quick on another. Everything seems okay otherwise, how about you?
Update 2: We've gotten enough reports to call it -- Atom support is out. Sorry, hackintosh community.
[Thanks to everyone who sent this in!]
General operating system fixes provided for:
- an issue that caused data to be deleted when using a guest account
- an issue that might cause your system to logout unexpectedly
- Spotlight search results not showing Exchange contacts
- the reliability of menu extras
- an issue in Dictionary when using Hebrew as the primary language
- shutter-click sound effect when taking a screenshot
- an issue with the four-finger swipe gesture
- an issue adding images to contacts in Address Book
- an issue in Front Row that could cause sluggish or slow frame rates while watching videos
- creation of mobile accounts for Active Directory users
- reliability and duration of VPN connections
- general reliability improvements for iWork, iLife, Aperture, Final Cut Studio, MobileMe, and iDisk
- overall improvements to VoiceOver performance
- this update addresses video playback and performance issues for iMac (21.5-inch, Late 2009) and iMac (27-inch, Late 2009) computers that may occur in some situations while AirPort is turned on
Fonts fixes provided for:
- an issue with font spacing
- an issue in which some Fonts are missing
- font duplication issues
- an issue with some PostScript Type 1 fonts not working properly
Graphics fixes provided for:
- an issue when connecting monitors to DVI and Mini DisplayPort adapters
- an issue in which the brightness setting may not be remembered on restart
- addresses functionality with specific display models
- general reliability and performance improvements when using some applications
Mail fixes provided for:
- a situation in which Mail's unread count may not update properly as messages are read on another computer
- an issue in which deleted RSS feeds may return
- an issue in which Mail cannot preview or Quick Look attachments when composing a new message
- an issue that can cause Address Book and/or Mail to stop responding when opened
- an issue in which email messages received from an Exchange Server are not formatted correctly
- an issue in which Mail reports "Account exceeded bandwidth limits" for some Gmail accounts
MobileMe fixes provided for:
- performance when accessing files from iDisk via the Finder and syncing iDisk files
- an issue in which syncing iDisk files does not proceed beyond "checking items"
- reliability and performance when syncing contacts, calendars, and bookmarks with MobileMe (syncing with iTunes and iSync are also improved)
- an issue that prevents some users from logging into MobileMe via the MobileMe System Preference pane
Network file systems fixes provided for:
- compatibility with third-party AFP servers
- file synchronization for portable home directories
Printing and faxing fixes provided for:
- automatic printer updates improvements
- Print dialog allowing you to enter and send to more than one fax recipient
Safari fixes provided for:
- a graphics distortion issue in Safari Top Sites
- Safari plug-in reliability
"Leopard users who haven't made the upgrade also get a gift today, in the form of a security update."
Pathetic
why are there updates to OSX? i thought it was supposed to be perfect?
@Max PL .. you must not have been paying attention for the last how many years. Apple releases STACKS of updates .. jesus Tiger went from 10.4 .. all the way to 10.4.11 ! It's anything but perfect.
it was a joke Nathan.
Fanboys forget a joke but never an insult.
..If you give them cookies, your comment will be blue again.
damn. EVERYBODY got shot by the lowrank gun. What is this, The Departed?
I use a iMac and a Windows 7 PC. I love BOTH OF THEM. Why don't you GROW THE HELL UP and stop insulting Mac users in every damn post concerning Mac. People can use BOTH and be happy.
Get out, idiot.
Actually, people can use BOTH and be unhappy, too...
A useful comparison would be users' blood pressure readings. Seriously, somebody ought to do a study: Do Mac users have lower blood pressure readings after several hours of computer usage relative to demographically similar PC users?
I would make a great case study for the blood pressure readings. Every week, I use...
- Windows XP Professional
- Windows Server 2003
- Windows Vista Ultimate
- Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
- Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger
- Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard
Right now, Windows XP makes me angry because that's what I do most of my development work on, and Windows 7 makes me angry because ATI's drivers are about as much use as a chocolate fireplace.
Well that sucks. I was considering giving it a go on my Asus netbook.
Me too. While the argument 'it's their product, made to run only on their hardware, what were you expecting?' holds up to some extent, when you look at the bigger picture, and the overwhelming push for open computing.. this just looks bad. Apple is taking their ball and going home.
I was intrigued by being able to try out OSX under my own terms before making the expensive jump into their hardware market, but now they are leaving me with no choice in the matter and sending the message that they don't want to tarnish the perception of the OSX user experience by having it run on third party devices.
Microsoft's been embracing a multitude of hardware for Windows for years and of course have taken flack for being unsecure and unstable etc. - Now Apple is vehemently trying to avoid garnering a distinction like that were something unexpected to take place on Hackintoshes, while Win7 is basically super-stable on every computer it's installed on.
Looks like the shoe is slowly slipping onto the other foot.
You're not seeing the bigger picture concerning Apple. Apple is a hardware company. They design hardware, they sell hardware. They make software because they want an all inclusive experience, but they don't do it to support themselves. The software exists to support the hardware, which is what makes them money.
If Apple were to let everybody install OS X on any machine they wanted, would people buy Apple's hardware? No, not really. Sure, some people would but not most people. And since that is where Apple's money comes from, it would be the same thing as shooting themselves in the foot, or committing financial suicide, or however you'd like to phrase it. Everything Apple does hinges on their hardware sales. It is their income.
Don't expect Apple to allow you to install OS X on any PC you want any time soon.
If they're a hardware company that sells hardware - something which comes with their operating system, why should they be concerned with someone running OSX on a device they have nothing to do with? It's a triumph that it was even possible to install and run OSX on Atom-based Netbooks to begin with.
Apple sells hardware and are a hardware company, right? You buy the hardware, you get the operating system. Taking a purposeful step toward banning OSX from an entire segment of devices totally unrelated to this cycle does not make people want to run out and spend thousands on a Mac just to continue having that experience.
So the people who were set on getting a Mac, will still do so, and like I said, those of us who wanted to try their operating system first(since all these Windows-bashing commercials they air make people at least a bit curious, dont'cha think?), are now largely put off by this. In a world where Google is OpenJustAboutEverything, from a PR standpoint this looks an Apple temper tantrum. Bad move.
Does 10.6.0 work fine with atom processors? My HP Mini's still running leopard, and I'd like the improved power management.
I've got 10.6.1 running on my eee 900A right now, and it works like a charm.
Konshuss: "If they're a hardware company that sells hardware - something which comes with their operating system, why should they be concerned with someone running OSX on a device they have nothing to do with?"
They should be concerned because that person is using a PC instead of a Mac to run OS X on. That translates directly to lost revenue for Apple. You may not want to believe this, but Apple's market share is actually growing, not shrinking. That means people are not put off by having to buy a Mac to use OS X, the numbers don't lie.
You also seem to think this is something new for Apple. It's not. This is how they've worked since System 1.0 in 1984. You can be put off by it all you want, but the fact remains that this is how Apple makes their money. It's how they've always made their money. They don't have the market share to support a software-only model like Microsoft does, so they depend on hardware sales for profit.
You want an object lesson in Apple's business model? Go back to about 1995. Apple (obviously not under Steve Jobs at that point) caved in to people like you and licensed the Mac OS to specific clone vendors. Some of the licensees were Power Computing, Motorola, Radius, Daystar Digital and UMAX. These companies started making Mac clones that used the same chips and firmware that actual Macs did, but they were cheaper. Can you guess what happened next?
Apple started hemorrhaging money. Their revenue started to drop almost immediately, and as the clones gained ground Apple's losses became more and more severe. People were not buying Macs, they were buying clones. I even bought a clone, it was a Radius 81/110, their version of a Power Mac 8100 - except a little faster and cheaper. By the time Jobs came back in 1997, Apple had hit a pretty severe low spot due to the clones.
One of the first things Jobs did when he returned was kill the clone licensing. That allowed them to start making money again instead of losing it to other hardware vendors. So really, the only bad move would be if Apple were to allow other companies to license OS X. This isn't speculation, it's already happened. Apple's entire business model depends on people buying THEIR hardware, not somebody else's. And as long as Apple has a model like the Mini which sells for $600, people who are curious really don't have any excuse for not trying it if that's what they really want to do.
@Jack: "They should be concerned because that person is using a PC instead of a Mac to run OS X on. That translates directly to lost revenue for Apple."
You sound a little too much like the RIAA. I think it's pretty safe to say that Apple would never have had that sale if the person is trying to install OS X on a PC that they already have.
The next logical step is for Microsoft to ban installation on Macs via Bootcamp, etc. right?
...but then we'd just be having this discussion in reverse.
Actually no, I take it back. MS doesn't stand to lose anything assuming what's being installed on Mac hardware has been bought legit.
Hell, when it comes right down to it, I just want to see OSX installed on as many different machines as possible. It would speak volumes for its stability, and as Apple marketshare continues to grow, will do nothing but bolster their image.
Hey, I have windows 7 on my macbook, wanna trade laptops?
Can't wait til we move and I can sell this piece of sh** and get a real laptop.
Data munching bug with atom support. Data munching bug removed along with Atom support with latest update. A bit suspect.
It's not like you HAVE to load the newest OS on your PC to have a great Mac experience... Just load one of the older versions and don't upgrade. Simplicity in itself.
I'm not sure why everyone here is up-ranking Jack. Nothing personal, man, but the argument you're presenting doesn't exactly hold water. If someone buys OSX and puts it on a netbook, that's a sale for Apple, period. As long as Apple is not making a product in the netbook sector, it only stands to gain if a legitimately-purchased copy of OSX is installed on a netbook. Even if the copy of OSX was pirated, Apple still stands to gain, in a sense, because a good experience with OSX is only going to make someone MORE likely to buy Apple hardware in the future.
I suspect that very few people who are using OSX on a netbook would have chosen to buy a $1000 Mac; they would have just installed Linux, instead. And now, Apple has alienated users who, again, would have been more likely to buy a Mac down the road. It's a bad move from a PR standpoint and it's a bad move from both a long-term and, really, a short-term sales standpoint. You'll have fewer OSX disc sales now (and lets face it, it costs virtually nothing to make a disc, so you're making plenty of profit there), fewer potential hardware sales in the future, and more of an impression that the company that used to "think different" isn't doing so anymore.
OKay first of all, maybe you guys haven't been paying attention to what I'm saying. Apple has a EULA in place that specifically forbids the use of OS X on anything other than Apple hardware. Therefore, if OS X is being used on a PC that literally translates directly to a lost HARDWARE sale for Apple. As I've said multiple times now, Apple makes money on hardware. That's why they have that EULA.
As far as seeing OS X on as many machines as possible. Look, I thought I made it as clear as I could possibly make it in my last post. Apple will lose revenue if they allowed people to install OS X on any machine they want. They would lose MASSIVE amounts of revenue. Again, this is not speculation. It's already happened. Apple is not a charity, they're a business. Their business is to sell hardware. Allowing OS X to run on other people's hardware is completely counter to their entire business model.
It's not going to happen.
Old fogie, how is my argument not holding water? Did you miss the part where I pointed out that it ALREADY HAPPENED? Are you trying to rewrite the past, or just ignore it? Sure, a sale of OS X is a sale. It gives Apple $29 bucks. Please tell me that you understand the difference between $29 for OS X and $1100 for a Macbook. Or more for a Mac Pro. Do you really think Apple could sustain itself on just the sales of $29 Snow Leopard? With about 10% market share?
Really? And your argument is fundamentally flawed by assuming that somebody who hacks OS X to run on a netbook would then be likely to buy Apple hardware. That's laughably wrong. You also don't seem to understand who Apple's target market is. It's definitely not people who hack netbooks to run OS X. Apple doesn't care about them at all because they represent such an absolutely miniscule percentage of people running OS X. Apple's target market are the general public, people who just want to use their computers, not hack them to get them to work. Those are the people that will buy a Mac if they want to try OS X.
You can try to say Apple is making bad moves all you want but try not to forget that Apple has been doing it this way for 25 years now. How are they doing these days? Have you seen their market cap? Do you know how much cash they have, and that they are a debt-free company? Do you honestly think Apple is doing so badly that they would jeopardize their entire existence to allow a few people to install OS X legally onto PCs?
It's not going to happen.
@ Jack "Apple has a EULA in place that specifically forbids the use of OS X on anything other than Apple hardware. Therefore, if OS X is being used on a PC that literally translates directly to a lost HARDWARE sale for Apple."
This presumes that this particular clause of the EULA is, in fact, valid. There is an argument (and, I think, a valid one) that this is an improper restriction by Apple to use its software to improperly increase hardware sales.
I'm well aware of Apple's stance vis a vis installing OSX on non-Apple hardware. Apple can do whatever the hell they want, they can say whatever the hell they want, they can put whatever words they want into their EULA, and YOU can say whatever YOU want, but it doesn't change the fact that Apple doesn't sell netbooks, or any computer that uses an Atom processor, and so putting OSX on a netbook is NOT A LOST SALE FOR APPLE. End of story.
Finally, that safari graphic distortion issue was killing me, kept showing porn sites in my top sites.
Good reason not to apply the patch then.....
It's a feature. Safari distorts your naughty pics according to your parental control settings
how about you just stop looking at porn sites.
My mum always said it'd make me go blind, she didn't mention any Safari distortion.
Wow - that Updated "feature" list looks like a decently serious synopsis of problems with SL so far. At least it "just works"?
The word "feature" is never used in the article.
Ummm...don't you know Stevie WANTED there to be some issues with SL so that everyone could see what it's like to have issues like windows. They had the fixes all along, just wanted to 'show us the way'. Thanks Steve! :D
@phenoum .. Bugs exist in almost every piece of software. Would you rather Apple not fix them ?
With the exception of the Guest Login bug (which did not apply to many people), these fixes are minor - so minor, it could have been termed 10.6.1.1 (except that would screw up one of the Jobs Commandments - thou shalt not useth one hundreth when you can useth one tenth excepteth when it cometh to AppleTVeth.
@ Jim
10.6.1.1 contains only tenths...
@phenoum Tis true. But that wouldn't help my pathetic attempt at humor.....
Sarcasm. It's over your head.
FEELS SNAPPIER!
Kylie, go back and use you Windows 7 PC :)
Guest account is fixed! Also, anyone got their Atoms to work on 6.2?
...An issue where user tries to install on Atom netbook.
I just got a my first mac mini last month when the new version came out. When I installed this update my computer got stuck on a grey screen with a rotating hour glass thingy. Did not reboot for over an hour. Had to pull the power. Hope I didn't screw up the install.
So far I hate this POS OS. It is so inefficient to use. You can't see two application toolbars at the same time. Every time I switch programs the other program disappears when I want to still see the document I had open in the background. Why do I want to waste my screen real estate to huge icons? I really don't understand why people make such a big deal about this OS, but I am trying to figure it out.
Weird. I can see three application toolbars right now (Firefox, Word, XCode). And loads of windows (about 10). And if I want my 'huge' icons to be smaller I just change them in Preferences.
No offense but if you can't work out how to use your Mac given how little customisation Apple does offer then something is a bit off.
Ummm.... icon sizes are controllable. In the finder view, you can also pinch gesture to vary the icons. In the dock, you can change prefs to alter the icon sizes too. Not sure what you mean my multiple menu bars. Yes, OSX only shows the menu for the active application, but why would you want to see the bar of a background application - that would waste screen real estate?
@Sam
Since when does MAC OS X have a rotating hourglass? Are you sure you're not using windows?
And why would I want the menu bar way the hell at the top of the screen, regardless of the location of the window?
Its less of a space saver and more of a hold over from the old, single app fills the whole screen days.
Associating the menu with each window wastes a bit of space, but makes more logical sense for a multiprogram, multiwindow environment.
Educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menu_bar#Ease_of_use