Home > Mac OS X > Java 1.4.2 Update 2 Released via SoftwareUpdateJava 1.4.2 Update 2 Released via SoftwareUpdate Eugenia Loli 2004-09-24 Mac OS X 19 CommentsJava 1.4.2 Update 2 for Mac OS X provides improved behavior for applets in Safari and increased stability for desktop Java applications. It is an accumulative upgrade.About The Author Eugenia LoliEx-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli 19 Comments 2004-09-24 7:54 am Too bad you need extrenal wrappers like http://javaplugin.sourceforge.net/ in order to use newer JVM with alternative browsers on Mac os X.Ludovic—http://perso.hirlimann.net/~ludo/blog/ 2004-09-24 9:12 am It’s funny, over the past couple of weeks I was forced to use MSIE because of misbehaving java applets etc. I was a bit disappointed in Safari on this BUT now it’s working like a charm… EXCELLENT!Jb 2004-09-24 11:01 am Any ideas when Java 1.5 will be available for OS X?Jasper 2004-09-24 11:52 am With Tiger I expect.JBuilder2005 is coming out soon with 1.5 support, but this would surely be delayed on MacOSX until Tiger. 2004-09-24 1:28 pm Try http://www.opendarwin.orgIt’ll get you most of it. It’ll even run on x86 so you wont have to purchase a Mac. It doesn’t come with the Apple GUI so you’ll have to use X with KDE or GNOME which are both supported. 2004-09-24 2:12 pm I’m a bit disappointed that it’s only available for MacOS 10.3.3 and above. I’ve got MacOS 10.2.8 and I find it a little odd that I’m limited to the java 1.3.1 plugin when I have the java 1.4.1_01 JRE (unless you count the cocoa java plugin which is 1.4.1 but I haven’t heard of any apps that take advantage of it).As much as I like Apple, it’s like they have to tweak everything before they let it work on their OS. Then they only have it work on their latest OS. Do I get Safari 1.2 on my mac? No, I get 1.03. I had to fight to get my machine upgraded to 10.2 (it’s a work computer) but it’s a good thing because I can’t run Safari at all on 10.0. Sorry about the rant but I’m getting tire of Apple’s “we’ve got updates but not for YOU” line. I mean I can run the java 1.4 plugin in Windows NT 4 but not on MacOS 10.2 – that just seems so wrong. 2004-09-24 2:28 pm don’t talk like that <harsh wisper> THEY WILL HEAR YOU! 2004-09-24 2:31 pm Yes, another example of Apple’s entire lack of support for slightly older OS versions. 1.4.2… requires OSX 10.3.3 or later. Why?(Any 10.3.3 features would be non-standard and rightly could be left out of 1.4.2, making it releasable on older versions of OSX.) Yet another form of extortion trying to force people to “upgrade” their versions of OSX every year?!This strategy is really making me reconsider any further Apple purchases(hw) and OS purchases in favor of something more with a longer support life, e.g. even MS supports windows longer, and linux etc you can do it yourself, but with Apple many of the things like Java there is just no source so you can’t support it yourself, and then are left the stick from Apple sans carrot. 2004-09-24 2:33 pm What does it accumulate? 2004-09-24 2:50 pm Apple is not maintaining the yearly upgrade cycle. This is getting to be a really old rant.I’m glad that Apple has initially not provided significant support for older releases. There has been to much churn in the code base to provide that backward compatibility without kludging things up. The OS is new enough that significant changes to the underlying foundations are needed. As the OS matures, less low level functionality will change, which will improve the frequency of compatibility issues and increase the time between upgrades.– Kelson 2004-09-24 2:55 pm Why would apple want to support an old version of an operating system, they want to look forward. Panther is SOOOO much better than Jaguar, I would have thought that pretty much everyone would have upgraded! 2004-09-24 5:10 pm People should stop comparing Apple to Microsoft when they complain about Apple not offering updates for Jaguar. First of all Microsoft has far more resources then Apple does when it comes to these things. Apple has to prioritize what is most important and that is not Jaguar. I have a machine with Jaguar still on it so I have to deal with it to but I like to much better that Apple dedicates its people to continue innovating with Tiger. I know some people like to buy an OS and use that one OS for 5 years but I like having new releases that are more advanced come out every so often and I don’t mind paying at all as long as it contains new innovations. I guess some people like what is familiar to them while other people get bored with what they have and like change. 2004-09-24 5:38 pm So let me get this straight: you’re running old OS software, and you’re happy with that and don’t want to upgrade it. BUT, there are these new, cutting-edge OS-level extensions that you want, and you’re unhappy they aren’t compatible with your old OS foundation. Do you see your problem now?For everyone who likes to complain again and again every time Apple issues an update that doesn’t apply to them, PLEASE, by all means, switch back to Windows or Linux. Updates are SO much more prompt and easy to apply over there. 2004-09-24 5:50 pm Considering that apple has gone back and made patches and security updates ect back to 10.1, I think they’re doing a goodish (but not great) job of supporting OSX.I don’t know all the the nitty gritty details of the changes but I do know that between 10.1/10.2 and 10.3 significant changes have been made to the kernel — hence the huge increase in speed.(Remember how 10.3 had that help exploit that didn’t exist in 10.2 and 10.2? That’s because of a change deep in the heart of the OS.)I don’t think that it’s a case of apple gouging people or trying to force upgrades, but simply a case of (a) something’s not possible or (b) they’ve decided not to allocate the resources to deal with every single iteration of the OS.Sure, I’d like to see Apple show full support back to 10.2, but it may not be possible right now given that the bulk of their energy is focused on getting Tiger out the door. 2004-09-24 10:06 pm Oh well, $129 every 12-18 mos. I get it free from school. 2004-09-25 1:05 am Please note just last week the anounced that only XP SP2 would be fully supported.They aren’t going to supply any new upgrade to IE on anything else. They aren’t going to fix the major security issues on the older systems also.You want the newest version of IE; yep you got it $98.00 for the XP upgrade. Also with each upgrade Windows gets slower, so you may have to pay ever more to upgrade your hardware to use it…My 7 year old Mac OS X 10.3.5 just fine and every upgrade since 10.0 has just gotten faster each time. 2004-09-25 7:15 am Not true. They just will not add any new features to older IE’s, but they will fix security issues. Please dont spread FUD. Thanks. 2004-09-25 11:32 am The moan and groaning is becoming and epidemic. Who cares about the release cycle or when the next release is made available. I moved from MacOS 10.2.8 to MacOS 10.3 about a month after it came out, just to see what bugs were kicked out of it. When 10.4 comes around the corner, I’ll see what it has to offer, if it offers better performance on existing hardware, a few extra features and possibly better bundles applications, then I’ll purchase it – considering I don’t waste money hooning up and down mainstreet in a souped up car or waste money on copious amounts of booze each week, the cost of $199 is a piss in the ocean.The only people who seem to be moaning about it are those who think that they should get a free ride, that some how old Steve Jobs has a hundred thousand oopa-loopa’s coding 24/7 because they do it for the love of the CEO. Sorry, coders have to get paid, Apples got to make a profit, and I’m sorry, but $14million profit off sales of MacOS 10.3 is pretty piddly in the grand scheme of things. 2004-09-25 7:55 pm Just curious:How do you know if the next version of OS X offers any advantages on your hardware without purchasing it?