Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the 'Interesting, but...' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Interesting, but...
Authored by: Krioni on Oct 25, '02 12:24:40PM

Interesting, but what if the installer does a Quit-All before it runs? Does anyone have a hint on the best way to block that? I'm guessing it sends an Apple Event to Quit to every app, but maybe there's more.

I don't load kernel extensions much, but I've seen plenty of poorly-configured installers that want to quit the 15+ apps I've got busy doing other things.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Interesting, but...
Authored by: DavidRavenMoon on Oct 25, '02 08:53:38PM
It's safer to quit apps because some might be writing to files the installer needs to modify, or you might have open files in general.

Also I just don't get what's the big deal about rebooting. It's a computer, not an uptime contest. People don't leave their TV or stereo on when they aren't using it, and unless your computer is a file server, there's no point in leaving it on. The 40 seconds my G4 takes to boot is not a big deal.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Interesting, but...
Authored by: aaronfaby on Oct 26, '02 01:19:58AM

Actually, shutting down all programs may have been a good thing to do with OS 9, however it's not even necessary with OS X. The only exception would be if you are upgrading an app that is already running, you would quit that particular application, not all apps. Unless the installer is updating frameworks or shared libraries, there are no conflicts.

It's just inconvenient when I have all my applications that I frequently use open, and the installer says I have to shut them all down. Then waste a few minutes rebooting when it's not even necessary, or even any safer.



[ Reply to This | # ]