f



Can't shutdown. Won't shutdown.

My Mac Mini, version OSX 10.4.9, refuses to shut down correctly. The monitor
displays a grey screen telling me I must switch off the Mini using the power
button. I humbly obey but, when I switch on again, an annoying message tells
me that the damned thing shut down unexpectedly. A minor and trivial niggle,
I'm sure, but is there anything I can do to sort it?

0
Davo
4/17/2007 7:25:29 PM
comp.sys.mac.system 33446 articles. 2 followers. jfmezei.spamnot (9455) is leader. Post Follow

45 Replies
828 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 37

"Davo" <u33430@uwe> writes:

>My Mac Mini, version OSX 10.4.9, refuses to shut down correctly. The monitor
>displays a grey screen telling me I must switch off the Mini using the power
>button. 

This sounds like a kernel panic.  Did you read the screen in detail?  Try
running DiskWarrior and/or TechTool Pro and scan the disk.  One of the
many possible causes of kernel panics (and a common one) is minor to moderate 
disk corruption.

>I humbly obey but, when I switch on again, an annoying message tells
>me that the damned thing shut down unexpectedly. A minor and trivial niggle,
>I'm sure, but is there anything I can do to sort it?

Fix the underlying problem that is causing the kernel panic.  Start with 
the  disk repair programs mentioned above.  Let us know what happens after
that....

 -Stephen
-- 
  Space Age Cybernomad                                   Stephen Adams
             malchus842SP@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)
0
adamst (298)
4/17/2007 7:42:25 PM
In article <f037v11146@news1.newsguy.com>, Stephen Adams <adamst@no.spam> wrote:

> >My Mac Mini, version OSX 10.4.9, refuses to shut down correctly. The monitor
> >displays a grey screen telling me I must switch off the Mini using the power
> >button. 
> 
> This sounds like a kernel panic.  Did you read the screen in detail?  Try
> running DiskWarrior and/or TechTool Pro and scan the disk.  One of the
> many possible causes of kernel panics (and a common one) is minor to moderate 
> disk corruption.
> 
> >I humbly obey but, when I switch on again, an annoying message tells
> >me that the damned thing shut down unexpectedly. A minor and trivial niggle,
> >I'm sure, but is there anything I can do to sort it?
> 
> Fix the underlying problem that is causing the kernel panic.  Start with 
> the  disk repair programs mentioned above.  Let us know what happens after
> that....

Why? Kernel panics seem to be caused by poor drivers often in connection
with sleep. Ever since I turned computer sleep off (but keep screen
sleep), I haven't had any.

  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
4/17/2007 8:08:47 PM
In article <haberg-1704072208470001@c83-250-192-69.bredband.comhem.se>,
Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:

> In article <f037v11146@news1.newsguy.com>, Stephen Adams <adamst@no.spam>
> wrote:
> 
> > >My Mac Mini, version OSX 10.4.9, refuses to shut down correctly. The
> > >monitor
> > >displays a grey screen telling me I must switch off the Mini using the
> > >power
> > >button. 
> > 
> > This sounds like a kernel panic.  Did you read the screen in detail?  Try
> > running DiskWarrior and/or TechTool Pro and scan the disk.  One of the
> > many possible causes of kernel panics (and a common one) is minor to
> > moderate 
> > disk corruption.
> > 
> > >I humbly obey but, when I switch on again, an annoying message tells
> > >me that the damned thing shut down unexpectedly. A minor and trivial
> > >niggle,
> > >I'm sure, but is there anything I can do to sort it?
> > 
> > Fix the underlying problem that is causing the kernel panic.  Start with 
> > the  disk repair programs mentioned above.  Let us know what happens after
> > that....
> 
> Why? Kernel panics seem to be caused by poor drivers often in connection
> with sleep. Ever since I turned computer sleep off (but keep screen
> sleep), I haven't had any.

Your experience (in many things) is not typical.

-- 
I am extraordinarily patient, provided I get my own way in the end.
- Margaret Thatcher
0
dave16 (4224)
4/17/2007 8:24:33 PM
In article <170420071424331204%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca wrote:

 > > Fix the underlying problem that is causing the kernel panic.  Start with 
> > > the  disk repair programs mentioned above.  Let us know what happens after
> > > that....
> > 
> > Why? Kernel panics seem to be caused by poor drivers often in connection
> > with sleep. Ever since I turned computer sleep off (but keep screen
> > sleep), I haven't had any.
> 
> Your experience (in many things) is not typical.

So what do you mean by that relative the technical issue at hand?

  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
4/17/2007 8:37:53 PM
On 2007-04-17 15:37:53 -0500, haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) said:

> In article <170420071424331204%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
> dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca wrote:
> 
>  > > Fix the underlying problem that is causing the kernel panic.  Start with
>>>> the  disk repair programs mentioned above.  Let us know what happens after
>>>> that....
>>> 
>>> Why? Kernel panics seem to be caused by poor drivers often in connection
>>> with sleep. Ever since I turned computer sleep off (but keep screen
>>> sleep), I haven't had any.
>> 
>> Your experience (in many things) is not typical.
> 
> So what do you mean by that relative the technical issue at hand?

He means experience shows that the OP's issue is likely not caused by a 
bug in sleep functionality.

-- 
JR

0
jollyroger2 (3048)
4/17/2007 8:41:11 PM
In article <haberg-1704072237530001@c83-250-192-69.bredband.comhem.se>,
Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:

> In article <170420071424331204%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
> dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca wrote:
> 
>  > > Fix the underlying problem that is causing the kernel panic.  Start with 
> > > > the  disk repair programs mentioned above.  Let us know what happens
> > > > after
> > > > that....
> > > 
> > > Why? Kernel panics seem to be caused by poor drivers often in connection
> > > with sleep. Ever since I turned computer sleep off (but keep screen
> > > sleep), I haven't had any.
> > 
> > Your experience (in many things) is not typical.
> 
> So what do you mean by that relative the technical issue at hand?

That your statement may be relevant to your own experience but is
unlikely to have anything to do with the issue at hand, especially
considering the OP never mentioned sleep as part of the problem, but
rather shutdown. I'd be interested in seeing any technotes that
describe kernel panics as a result of bad drivers and sleep, however.

To Davo:

What peripherals do you have connected? If you unplug them and start
up, do you get the panic?

As well, see <http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303656>
although it seems to be an obscure problem.

Contrary to what Hans says, kernel panics are often hardware related,
as you will see if you go to apple.com, click "Support" and enter
"kernel panic" in the search field.

Check your peripheral devices (mouse, keyboard, etc). Run disk
diagnostics. Also consider testing the RAM and/or cracking the Mini
open (or having someone do it) and reseating the RAM.

-- 
I am extraordinarily patient, provided I get my own way in the end.
- Margaret Thatcher
0
dave16 (4224)
4/17/2007 8:54:00 PM
In article <170420071454007208%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca wrote:

> > So what do you mean by that relative the technical issue at hand?
> 
> That your statement may be relevant to your own experience but is
> unlikely to have anything to do with the issue at hand, especially
> considering the OP never mentioned sleep as part of the problem, but
> rather shutdown. I'd be interested in seeing any technotes that
> describe kernel panics as a result of bad drivers and sleep, however.

So what do you think a kernel panic is?

> What peripherals do you have connected? If you unplug them and start
> up, do you get the panic?
> 
> As well, see <http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303656>
> although it seems to be an obscure problem.
> 
> Contrary to what Hans says, kernel panics are often hardware related,
> as you will see if you go to apple.com, click "Support" and enter
> "kernel panic" in the search field.

Contrary to what I said???

> Check your peripheral devices (mouse, keyboard, etc). Run disk
> diagnostics. Also consider testing the RAM and/or cracking the Mini
> open (or having someone do it) and reseating the RAM.

How about reinstalling the OS?

  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
4/17/2007 9:03:14 PM
In article <2007041715411026553-jollyroger@nullorg>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@null.org> wrote:

> >  > > Fix the underlying problem that is causing the kernel panic. 
Start with
> >>>> the  disk repair programs mentioned above.  Let us know what
happens after
> >>>> that....
> >>> 
> >>> Why? Kernel panics seem to be caused by poor drivers often in connection
> >>> with sleep. Ever since I turned computer sleep off (but keep screen
> >>> sleep), I haven't had any.
> >> 
> >> Your experience (in many things) is not typical.
> > 
> > So what do you mean by that relative the technical issue at hand?
> 
> He means experience shows that the OP's issue is likely not caused by a 
> bug in sleep functionality.

Mind reader, please explain this further what he means, what experience?

  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
4/17/2007 9:05:31 PM
In article <haberg-1704072303140001@c83-250-192-69.bredband.comhem.se>,
Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:

> In article <170420071454007208%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
> dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca wrote:
> 
> > > So what do you mean by that relative the technical issue at hand?
> > 
> > That your statement may be relevant to your own experience but is
> > unlikely to have anything to do with the issue at hand, especially
> > considering the OP never mentioned sleep as part of the problem, but
> > rather shutdown. I'd be interested in seeing any technotes that
> > describe kernel panics as a result of bad drivers and sleep, however.
> 
> So what do you think a kernel panic is?

An error that the OS cannot recover from, is the simplest explanation.

> 
> > What peripherals do you have connected? If you unplug them and start
> > up, do you get the panic?
> > 
> > As well, see <http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303656>
> > although it seems to be an obscure problem.
> > 
> > Contrary to what Hans says, kernel panics are often hardware related,
> > as you will see if you go to apple.com, click "Support" and enter
> > "kernel panic" in the search field.
> 
> Contrary to what I said???

You said "Kernel panics seem to be caused by poor drivers often in
connection with sleep." Contrary to that statement, kernel panics are
often hardware related. If you had said "Kernel panics may be caused by
poor drivers in connection with sleep." I would not have used the word
"contrary" but would still have pointed out that sleep was not
mentioned in the original post. Shutdown was.

> 
> > Check your peripheral devices (mouse, keyboard, etc). Run disk
> > diagnostics. Also consider testing the RAM and/or cracking the Mini
> > open (or having someone do it) and reseating the RAM.
> 
> How about reinstalling the OS?

It's an option. But if the OP has hardware that's causing the kernel
panics it's unlikely to help.

-- 
I am extraordinarily patient, provided I get my own way in the end.
- Margaret Thatcher
0
dave16 (4224)
4/17/2007 9:10:06 PM
On 2007-04-17 16:05:31 -0500, haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) said:

> In article <2007041715411026553-jollyroger@nullorg>, Jolly Roger
> <jollyroger@null.org> wrote:
> 
>>>>> Fix the underlying problem that is causing the kernel panic.
> Start with
>>>>>> the  disk repair programs mentioned above.  Let us know what
> happens after
>>>>>> that....
>>>>> 
>>>>> Why? Kernel panics seem to be caused by poor drivers often in connection
>>>>> with sleep. Ever since I turned computer sleep off (but keep screen
>>>>> sleep), I haven't had any.
>>>> 
>>>> Your experience (in many things) is not typical.
>>> 
>>> So what do you mean by that relative the technical issue at hand?
>> 
>> He means experience shows that the OP's issue is likely not caused by a
>> bug in sleep functionality.
> 
> Mind reader, please explain this further what he means, what experience?

I think I'll let him speak for himself.

-- 
JR

0
jollyroger2 (3048)
4/17/2007 9:33:27 PM
In article <170420071510065164%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca wrote:

> > So what do you think a kernel panic is?
> 
> An error that the OS cannot recover from, is the simplest explanation.

No, it is an error that the UNIX kernel cannot recover from, that it, code
it cannot interpret. The kernel runs processes (and does not know anything
about the OS on top of it), but if a process has code the kernel cannot
handle, the latter takes it down. So the kernel must be nearly always be
fed some code external to normal processes for a kernel panic to happen,
because in normal running this should happen very rarely.

So there are not many ways the UNIX kernel can be fed�external code, but
when it goes to sleep, then in fact the whole kernel is going comatose,
and it was not designed for being able to handle that. So tweaking the
UNIX�kernel to get it right is very difficult.

Now, as it happens, I had some communications with APDA about ways to get
around this problem, and they got back, thanking for this suggestion they
said they would investigate. So this is my�experience that�makes me think
I am right, and probably not the�typical one. :-)

> > > What peripherals do you have connected? If you unplug them and start
> > > up, do you get the panic?
> > >
> > > As well, see <http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303656>
> > > although it seems to be an obscure problem.
> > >
> > > Contrary to what Hans says, kernel panics are often hardware related,
> > > as you will see if you go to apple.com, click "Support" and enter
> > > "kernel panic" in the search field.
> >
> > Contrary to what I said???
>
> You said "Kernel panics seem to be caused by poor drivers often in
> connection with sleep." Contrary to that statement, kernel panics are
> often hardware related. If you had said "Kernel panics may be caused by
> poor drivers in connection with sleep." I would not have used the word
> "contrary" but would still have pointed out that sleep was not
> mentioned in the original post. Shutdown was.

The hardware needs drivers to communicate with the kernel. If that just
fails in the realm of normal processes, the kernel panic should not
happen.

> > > Check your peripheral devices (mouse, keyboard, etc). Run disk
> > > diagnostics. Also consider testing the RAM and/or cracking the Mini
> > > open (or having someone do it) and reseating the RAM.
> >
> > How about reinstalling the OS?
>
> It's an option. But if the OP has hardware that's causing the kernel
> panics it's unlikely to help.

This last comment is though true. Therefore, one can try to turning
computer sleep, and see if that helps.

If computer sleep is off, then kernel panics can still happen, because the
kernel is not 100% sure to not being able to handle faulty processes. In
fact, I was able to bomb a Sun UNIX computer in the 1990s only doing some
Netscape surfing. But this is should happen very rarely.

  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
4/17/2007 9:39:50 PM
In article <2007041716332779373-jollyroger@nullorg>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@null.org> wrote:

> > Mind reader, please explain this further what he means, what experience?
> 
> I think I'll let him speak for himself.

Good! :-)

  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
4/17/2007 9:40:38 PM
On 2007-04-17 16:40:38 -0500, haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) said:

> In article <2007041716332779373-jollyroger@nullorg>, Jolly Roger
> <jollyroger@null.org> wrote:
> 
>>> Mind reader, please explain this further what he means, what experience?
>> 
>> I think I'll let him speak for himself.
> 
> Good! :-)

Well the only reason I said anything is you seem to be on some sort of 
war path with Dave regarding kernel panics. And I have personal 
experience that shows kernel panics often have nothing at all to do 
with misbehaving drivers.

-- 
JR

0
jollyroger2 (3048)
4/17/2007 9:45:38 PM
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@null.org> wrote:

> Well the only reason I said anything is you seem to be on some sort of
> war path with Dave regarding kernel panics. And I have personal 
> experience that shows kernel panics often have nothing at all to do 
> with misbehaving drivers.

Also, the gist of Dave's contention Hans is that the OP's problem has
nothing to do with sleep issues.

-- 
<http://designsbymike.biz/macconsultshop.shtml> Mac-themed T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/musings.shtml> Mostly muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/prius.shtml> Prius shirts & bumper stickers
<http://cafepress.com/comedancing> Ballroom dance-themed shirts & gift
0
mikePOST (4990)
4/17/2007 9:55:01 PM
On 2007-04-17 16:55:01 -0500, mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike 
Rosenberg) said:

> Jolly Roger <jollyroger@null.org> wrote:
> 
>> Well the only reason I said anything is you seem to be on some sort of
>> war path with Dave regarding kernel panics. And I have personal
>> experience that shows kernel panics often have nothing at all to do
>> with misbehaving drivers.
> 
> Also, the gist of Dave's contention Hans is that the OP's problem has
> nothing to do with sleep issues.

I don't get what Hans is so worked up about. Yes, kernel panics can 
happen as a result of misbehaving drivers, but anyone saying there are 
absolutely no other causes isn't living in reality.

-- 
JR

0
jollyroger2 (3048)
4/17/2007 9:59:48 PM
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@null.org> wrote:

> I don't get what Hans is so worked up about. Yes, kernel panics can 
> happen as a result of misbehaving drivers, but anyone saying there are
> absolutely no other causes isn't living in reality.

Oh, that's just Hans being Hans.  I've learned from experience he's
never wrong.  Occasionally contrafactual, but never wrong.  ;-)

-- 
<http://designsbymike.biz/macconsultshop.shtml> Mac-themed T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/musings.shtml> Mostly muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/prius.shtml> Prius shirts & bumper stickers
<http://cafepress.com/comedancing> Ballroom dance-themed shirts & gift
0
mikePOST (4990)
4/17/2007 10:02:49 PM
In article <2007041716453862721-jollyroger@nullorg>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@null.org> wrote:

> >>> Mind reader, please explain this further what he means, what experience?
> >> 
> >> I think I'll let him speak for himself.
> > 
> > Good! :-)
> 
> Well the only reason I said anything is you seem to be on some sort of 
> war path with Dave regarding kernel panics. 

So you mean that if I responds to a personal attack by asking how that
relates to the technical issue at hand, then I am going out at war???
Well, well, well.

> And I have personal 
> experience that shows kernel panics often have nothing at all to do 
> with misbehaving drivers.

So should perhaps explain how you derive that experience. I mean, all one
get to know is that the kernel got some code it cannot handle.

  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
4/17/2007 10:07:44 PM
In article <1hwq716.o0vqii6o546xN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> Also, the gist of Dave's contention Hans...

Oh this is difficult English.

> ... is that the OP's problem has
> nothing to do with sleep issues.

And how was this conclusion derived? The OP just said something about a
green box saying the computer must be shut down by hand.

  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
4/17/2007 10:12:02 PM
In article <2007041716594892301-jollyroger@nullorg>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@null.org> wrote:

> > Also, the gist of Dave's contention Hans is that the OP's problem has
> > nothing to do with sleep issues.
> 
> I don't get what Hans is so worked up about. 

Am I worked up, when I calmly try to get you to explain what you mean. Gosh!

> Yes, kernel panics can
> happen as a result of misbehaving drivers, but anyone saying there are
> absolutely no other causes isn't living in reality.

Your suggestion look like coming from Mac OS 9. Yes, back then, those were
right. But it is very difficult to bomb a UNIX kernel via ordinarily
running processes. UNIX�computers bomb very rarely, and therefore Internet
is pretty much being run by them. Still Mac OS X can bomb via "kernel
panics" much�more often that other UNIX computers. Why is that so? There
must something that causes it.

  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
4/17/2007 10:17:09 PM
Mike "Shirley" Rosenberg wrote:

> Oh, that's just Hans being Hans.  I've learned from experience he's
> never wrong.  Occasionally contrafactual, but never wrong.  ;-)

Shirley!

One thing is for sure, that Mike does never admit his mistakes of
significance, just look at the thread "Disk repair fails". Boy, did he
really stupid�remarks there. But�did he post admitting that he was a
dumbass there. Nope!

By Shirley!

  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
4/17/2007 10:24:19 PM
On 2007-04-17 17:24:19 -0500, haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) said:

> One thing is for sure, that Mike does never admit his mistakes of
> significance

Pot, meet Kettle.

-- 
JR

0
jollyroger2 (3048)
4/17/2007 10:35:10 PM
In article <haberg-1804070012020001@c83-250-192-69.bredband.comhem.se>,
Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:

> In article <1hwq716.o0vqii6o546xN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
> mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:
> 
> > Also, the gist of Dave's contention Hans...
> 
> Oh this is difficult English.
> 
> > ... is that the OP's problem has
> > nothing to do with sleep issues.
> 
> And how was this conclusion derived? The OP just said something about a
> green box saying the computer must be shut down by hand.

Go back and read the original message. The OP is getting the panic AT
SHUTDOWN and *not* waking from sleep. The OP never mentions sleep.

-- 
I am extraordinarily patient, provided I get my own way in the end.
- Margaret Thatcher
0
dave16 (4224)
4/17/2007 10:35:20 PM
On 2007-04-17 17:17:09 -0500, haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) said:

> In article <2007041716594892301-jollyroger@nullorg>, Jolly Roger
> <jollyroger@null.org> wrote:
> 
>>> Also, the gist of Dave's contention Hans is that the OP's problem has
>>> nothing to do with sleep issues.
>> 
>> I don't get what Hans is so worked up about.
> 
> Am I worked up, when I calmly try to get you to explain what you mean. Gosh!

I don't know.  Are you?  You seem to be.

>> Yes, kernel panics can
>> happen as a result of misbehaving drivers, but anyone saying there are
>> absolutely no other causes isn't living in reality.
> 
> Your suggestion look like coming from Mac OS 9.

Say what?

Your English look like coming from not America.

> Yes, back then, those were right.

Back in Mac OS 9 one could lock up the kernel?  Sure.

Yet even today in Mac OS X with XNU it's possible to panic through 
means other than sleep issues.

> But it is very difficult to bomb a UNIX kernel via ordinarily
> running processes.

Yet still, it happens.  Go figure.

> Still Mac OS X can bomb via "kernel
> panics" much�more often that other UNIX computers. Why is that so? There
> must something that causes it.

According to you, it's all due to sleep bugs.

-- 
JR

0
jollyroger2 (3048)
4/17/2007 10:39:34 PM
On 2007-04-17 17:07:44 -0500, haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) said:

> In article <2007041716453862721-jollyroger@nullorg>, Jolly Roger
> <jollyroger@null.org> wrote:
> 
>>>>> Mind reader, please explain this further what he means, what experience?
>>>> 
>>>> I think I'll let him speak for himself.
>>> 
>>> Good! :-)
>> 
>> Well the only reason I said anything is you seem to be on some sort of
>> war path with Dave regarding kernel panics.
> 
> So you mean that if I responds to a personal attack by asking how that
> relates to the technical issue at hand, then I am going out at war???
> Well, well, well.

Nobody has attacked your person here. It's *you* who seems to be on the 
offensive position here. In fact, nobody was talking to you at all 
until you went on the offensive with Dave.

>> And I have personal
>> experience that shows kernel panics often have nothing at all to do
>> with misbehaving drivers.
> 
> So should perhaps explain how you derive that experience. I mean, all one
> get to know is that the kernel got some code it cannot handle.

I've had plenty of kernel panics that had nothing at all to do with sleep.

-- 
JR

0
jollyroger2 (3048)
4/17/2007 10:42:35 PM
In article <170420071635201468%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca wrote:

> > And how was this conclusion derived? The OP just said something about a
> > green box saying the computer must be shut down by hand.
> 
> Go back and read the original message. The OP is getting the panic AT
> SHUTDOWN and *not* waking from sleep. The OP never mentions sleep.

What happens is that some code is becoming corrupted somewhere, and the
kernel at a later point experiences it, causing the kernel panic. So there
is no close connection there. It makes it very difficult to debug.

  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
4/17/2007 10:48:38 PM
In article <haberg-1804070007440001@c83-250-192-69.bredband.comhem.se>,
Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:

> In article <2007041716453862721-jollyroger@nullorg>, Jolly Roger
> <jollyroger@null.org> wrote:
> 
> > >>> Mind reader, please explain this further what he means, what experience?
> > >> 
> > >> I think I'll let him speak for himself.
> > > 
> > > Good! :-)
> > 
> > Well the only reason I said anything is you seem to be on some sort of 
> > war path with Dave regarding kernel panics. 
> 
> So you mean that if I responds to a personal attack by asking how that
> relates to the technical issue at hand, then I am going out at war???
> Well, well, well.

What "personal attack" are you referring to? There has been no personal
attack in this thread.

If you want one, however, it can be arranged.

> > And I have personal 
> > experience that shows kernel panics often have nothing at all to do 
> > with misbehaving drivers.
> 
> So should perhaps explain how you derive that experience. I mean, all one
> get to know is that the kernel got some code it cannot handle.
> 
>   Hans Aberg

-- 
I am extraordinarily patient, provided I get my own way in the end.
- Margaret Thatcher
0
dave16 (4224)
4/17/2007 10:49:13 PM
Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:

> One thing is for sure, that Mike does never admit his mistakes of
> significance...

Excuse me?  I have no problem saying I'm wrong, and I have often posted
to say I had made a mistake in a previous post.  

> just look at the thread "Disk repair fails". Boy, did he
> really stupid remarks there. But did he post admitting that he was a
> dumbass there. Nope!

Okay, I see the one and only post I made in the thread, in which I
advised people it's prudent always act as if their drive may fail and to
be sure to have a sensible backup in case of the worst.  If you think
that's stupid, well so be it, but perhaps you would care to explain why
you think people should _not_ do this.

-- 
<http://designsbymike.biz/macconsultshop.shtml> Mac-themed T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/musings.shtml> Mostly muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/prius.shtml> Prius shirts & bumper stickers
<http://cafepress.com/comedancing> Ballroom dance-themed shirts & gift
0
mikePOST (4990)
4/17/2007 10:55:31 PM
In article <haberg-1804070048370001@c83-250-192-69.bredband.comhem.se>,
Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:

> In article <170420071635201468%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
> dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca wrote:
> 
> > > And how was this conclusion derived? The OP just said something about a
> > > green box saying the computer must be shut down by hand.
> > 
> > Go back and read the original message. The OP is getting the panic AT
> > SHUTDOWN and *not* waking from sleep. The OP never mentions sleep.
> 
> What happens is that some code is becoming corrupted somewhere, and the
> kernel at a later point experiences it, causing the kernel panic. So there
> is no close connection there. It makes it very difficult to debug.

Ah. So the fact that you can't demonstrate a connection to the Mac
sleeping is how you know it's there.

Gotcha.

My laptops have been put to sleep at least 10 times a week for years.

I do not experience kernel panics when shutting down or restarting.

I do not experience kernel panics at all.

Which, I suppose, somehow proves your hypothesis?

-- 
I am extraordinarily patient, provided I get my own way in the end.
- Margaret Thatcher
0
dave16 (4224)
4/17/2007 10:56:31 PM
In article <2007041717393486158-jollyroger@nullorg>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@null.org> wrote:

> > Your suggestion look like coming from Mac OS 9.
> 
> Say what?
> 
> Your English look like coming from not America.

Sounds like you should go to sci.lang.

> Yet even today in Mac OS X with XNU it's possible to panic through 
> means other than sleep issues.

Just tell why, if now the kernel looks at every instruction making sure it
is correct, and if not, merely downs the process that owned it.

> > Still Mac OS X can bomb via "kernel
> > panics" much�more often that other UNIX computers. Why is that so? There
> > must something that causes it.
> 
> According to you, it's all due to sleep bugs.

No, I am saying that with code proper in the from of processes, a UNIX
cmoputer almost never bombs. It is only taken down for maintenance. This
is not what we are speaking about in terms of 

If you have kernel panics, it is easy to turn computer sleep off, to see
if that helps it.

  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
4/17/2007 10:58:32 PM
In article <2007041717423571084-jollyroger@nullorg>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@null.org> wrote:

> Nobody has attacked your person here. It's *you* who seems to be on the 
> offensive position here. In fact, nobody was talking to you at all 
> until you went on the offensive with Dave.

The guy I was replying was named Stephen. Didn't read the thread before
replying?

> >> And I have personal
> >> experience that shows kernel panics often have nothing at all to do
> >> with misbehaving drivers.
> > 
> > So should perhaps explain how you derive that experience. I mean, all one
> > get to know is that the kernel got some code it cannot handle.
> 
> I've had plenty of kernel panics that had nothing at all to do with sleep.

You don't know what caused them.

  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
4/17/2007 11:02:48 PM
In article <170420071649131459%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca wrote:

> > So you mean that if I responds to a personal attack by asking how that
> > relates to the technical issue at hand, then I am going out at war???
> > Well, well, well.
> 
> What "personal attack" are you referring to? There has been no personal
> attack in this thread.

This

> In article <170420071424331204%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
> dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca wrote:
> 
> > Your experience (in many things) is not typical.

> If you want one, however, it can be arranged.

So it is so much a part of yourself, you are not aware of it.

  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
4/17/2007 11:05:25 PM
Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:

> > Also, the gist of Dave's contention Hans...
> 
> Oh this is difficult English.

I didn't read what I had written carefully before posting and missed
seeing that I had left out "with."  That should have been "Also, the
gist of Dave's contention _with_ Hans..."

> > ... is that the OP's problem has
> > nothing to do with sleep issues.
> 
> And how was this conclusion derived? The OP just said something about a
> green box saying the computer must be shut down by hand.

Let's see, there's the subject line, which is "Can't shutdown. Won't
shutdown."  Then there's his description of the problem, which reads "My
Mac Mini, version OSX 10.4.9, refuses to shut down correctly."  He has a
problem trying to shut down his mini."  To answer your question, I
derived that conclusion by reading what he had written.  How did _you_
derive the conclusion that sleep is the problem?

-- 
<http://designsbymike.biz/macconsultshop.shtml> Mac-themed T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/musings.shtml> Mostly muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/prius.shtml> Prius shirts & bumper stickers
<http://cafepress.com/comedancing> Ballroom dance-themed shirts & gift
0
mikePOST (4990)
4/17/2007 11:06:28 PM
In article <haberg-1804070105250001@c83-250-192-69.bredband.comhem.se>,
Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:

> In article <170420071649131459%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
> dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca wrote:
> 
> > > So you mean that if I responds to a personal attack by asking how that
> > > relates to the technical issue at hand, then I am going out at war???
> > > Well, well, well.
> > 
> > What "personal attack" are you referring to? There has been no personal
> > attack in this thread.
> 
> This
> 
> > In article <170420071424331204%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
> > dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca wrote:
> > 
> > > Your experience (in many things) is not typical.


That is a demonstrable fact, not an attack.

-- 
I am extraordinarily patient, provided I get my own way in the end.
- Margaret Thatcher
0
dave16 (4224)
4/17/2007 11:08:59 PM
Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:

> This
> 
> > In article <170420071424331204%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
> > dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca wrote:
> > 
> > > Your experience (in many things) is not typical.

You call _that_ a personal attack?  One a scale of 1 to 10, that's a 1.5
at best.  Would you like to see what a 5 is like?  (That's about as high
as I think you should risk going for now.)

-- 
<http://designsbymike.biz/macconsultshop.shtml> Mac-themed T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/musings.shtml> Mostly muckraking T-shirts
<http://designsbymike.biz/prius.shtml> Prius shirts & bumper stickers
<http://cafepress.com/comedancing> Ballroom dance-themed shirts & gift
0
mikePOST (4990)
4/17/2007 11:10:52 PM
In article <1hwq9f9.16id17b16ltrgpN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> > One thing is for sure, that Mike does never admit his mistakes of
> > significance...
> 
> Excuse me?  I have no problem saying I'm wrong, and I have often posted
> to say I had made a mistake in a previous post.  

The point is: get on the facts, and d not waste time on who is the
culprit, that is just how technical lists work. And it is a too frequent
phenomenon that those seeks someone to blame, were the ones who did it - I
am not blaming you for it, but it just makes the�practice bad. So let's
get on with the technical issues, please!

> > just look at the thread "Disk repair fails". Boy, did he
> > really stupid remarks there. But did he post admitting that he was a
> > dumbass there. Nope!
>
> Okay, I see the one and only post I made in the thread, in which I
> advised people it's prudent always act as if their drive may fail and to
> be sure to have a sensible backup in case of the worst.� If you think
> that's stupid, well so be it, but perhaps you would care to explain why
> you think people should _not_ do this.

I do not recall the issue anymore: see the link to Apple support I posted
in that thread.

  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
4/17/2007 11:11:11 PM
In article <170420071656317729%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca wrote:

> > > > And how was this conclusion derived? The OP just said something about a
> > > > green box saying the computer must be shut down by hand.
> > > 
> > > Go back and read the original message. The OP is getting the panic AT
> > > SHUTDOWN and *not* waking from sleep. The OP never mentions sleep.
> > 
> > What happens is that some code is becoming corrupted somewhere, and the
> > kernel at a later point experiences it, causing the kernel panic. So there
> > is no close connection there. It makes it very difficult to debug.
> 
> Ah. So the fact that you can't demonstrate a connection to the Mac
> sleeping is how you know it's there.

No. It was based on a number communications here, that reasoning about how
the UNIX kernel and sleep works, and finally that suggestion to and
response from Apple.

> My laptops have been put to sleep at least 10 times a week for years.
> 
> I do not experience kernel panics when shutting down or restarting.
> 
> I do not experience kernel panics at all.
> 
> Which, I suppose, somehow proves your hypothesis?

If you have drivers that are well written and handshaking well with the
kernel with respect to sleep, then you may not get any problems.

So my suggestion is that if you have problems with kernel panics, try to
turn off sleep to see if that helps.

If you do not have problems, do whatever you like. But UNIX wasn't written
to handle sleep, so therefore, I have it turned off. Do whatever you like.

  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
4/17/2007 11:20:07 PM
In article <1hwqa4k.1h1nfeq8248l2N%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> > > Also, the gist of Dave's contention Hans...
> > 
> > Oh this is difficult English.
> 
> I didn't read what I had written carefully before posting and missed
> seeing that I had left out "with."  That should have been "Also, the
> gist of Dave's contention _with_ Hans..."

Sorry, I thought it was a construction I should have been able to parse.

> > > ... is that the OP's problem has
> > > nothing to do with sleep issues.
> > 
> > And how was this conclusion derived? The OP just said something about a
> > green box saying the computer must be shut down by hand.
> 
> Let's see, there's the subject line, which is "Can't shutdown. Won't
> shutdown."  Then there's his description of the problem, which reads "My
> Mac Mini, version OSX 10.4.9, refuses to shut down correctly."  He has a
> problem trying to shut down his mini."  To answer your question, I
> derived that conclusion by reading what he had written.  How did _you_
> derive the conclusion that sleep is the problem?

I am just discussing kernel panics in general, pointing out the sleep
thing, giving the OP the chance to get back for further info at need.

  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
4/17/2007 11:23:41 PM
In article <170420071708592609%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca wrote:

> > > > So you mean that if I responds to a personal attack by asking how that
> > > > relates to the technical issue at hand, then I am going out at war???
> > > > Well, well, well.
> > > 
> > > What "personal attack" are you referring to? There has been no personal
> > > attack in this thread.
> > 
> > This
> > 
> > > In article <170420071424331204%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
> > > dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Your experience (in many things) is not typical.
> 
> 
> That is a demonstrable fact, not an attack.

Hardly, it does not bring the technical issue forward. Try to hang out at
some moderated technical lists, to see if your stuff gets thorugh there.

  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
4/17/2007 11:24:53 PM
In article <1hwqaiq.t16cd7aakuhgN%mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com>,
mikePOST@TOGROUPmacconsult.com (Mike Rosenberg) wrote:

> > > > Your experience (in many things) is not typical.
> 
> You call _that_ a personal attack?  

Now you are jumping into some others discussion, instead of kletting folks
speak for themselves.

It it personal, not intended positive, and does not realte to the
technical ssue at hand. So a personal attack it is.

> One a scale of 1 to 10, that's a 1.5
> at best.  

Personal attacks are so frequent in this newsgroup, you don't notice it anymore.

> Would you like to see what a 5 is like?  (That's about as high
> as I think you should risk going for now.)

Please don't try me. Such stuff just don't entertain me, that is why I am
not engaging in it, not really that I do not know about it.

  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
4/17/2007 11:29:37 PM
I have to drop off here (among other things, handling some Apple bugreport
communications).

  Hans Aberg
0
haberg627 (1618)
4/17/2007 11:30:58 PM
In article <haberg-1804070124530001@c83-250-192-69.bredband.comhem.se>,
Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:

> In article <170420071708592609%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
> dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca wrote:
> 
> > > > > So you mean that if I responds to a personal attack by asking how that
> > > > > relates to the technical issue at hand, then I am going out at war???
> > > > > Well, well, well.
> > > > 
> > > > What "personal attack" are you referring to? There has been no personal
> > > > attack in this thread.
> > > 
> > > This
> > > 
> > > > In article <170420071424331204%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>,
> > > > dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Your experience (in many things) is not typical.
> > 
> > 
> > That is a demonstrable fact, not an attack.
> 
> Hardly, it does not bring the technical issue forward. Try to hang out at
> some moderated technical lists, to see if your stuff gets thorugh there.

I don't believe in censorship.

-- 
I am extraordinarily patient, provided I get my own way in the end.
- Margaret Thatcher
0
dave16 (4224)
4/17/2007 11:34:42 PM
On 2007-04-17 17:58:32 -0500, haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) said:

>> Yet even today in Mac OS X with XNU it's possible to panic through
>> means other than sleep issues.
> 
> Just tell why, if now the kernel looks at every instruction making sure it
> is correct, and if not, merely downs the process that owned it.

The onus is on *you* to prove that the only way to panic a kernel is 
with sleep functionality.

-- 
JR

0
jollyroger2 (3048)
4/18/2007 12:08:11 AM
On 2007-04-17 18:20:07 -0500, haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) said:

> UNIX wasn't written to handle sleep

Am I the only one who finds this statement somewhat amusing?  : )

-- 
JR

0
jollyroger2 (3048)
4/18/2007 12:10:32 AM
On 2007-04-17 18:02:48 -0500, haberg@math.su.se (Hans Aberg) said:

> In article <2007041717423571084-jollyroger@nullorg>, Jolly Roger
> <jollyroger@null.org> wrote:
> 
>> Nobody has attacked your person here. It's *you* who seems to be on the
>> offensive position here. In fact, nobody was talking to you at all
>> until you went on the offensive with Dave.
> 
> The guy I was replying was named Stephen. Didn't read the thread before
> replying?
> 
>>>> And I have personal
>>>> experience that shows kernel panics often have nothing at all to do
>>>> with misbehaving drivers.
>>> 
>>> So should perhaps explain how you derive that experience. I mean, all one
>>> get to know is that the kernel got some code it cannot handle.
>> 
>> I've had plenty of kernel panics that had nothing at all to do with sleep.
> 
> You don't know what caused them.

Neither do you.

-- 
JR

0
jollyroger2 (3048)
4/18/2007 12:11:45 AM
In article <70da05f89fb02@uwe>, "Davo" <u33430@uwe> wrote:

> My Mac Mini, version OSX 10.4.9, refuses to shut down correctly. The monitor
> displays a grey screen telling me I must switch off the Mini using the power
> button. I humbly obey but, when I switch on again, an annoying message tells
> me that the damned thing shut down unexpectedly. A minor and trivial niggle,
> I'm sure, but is there anything I can do to sort it?

You are experiencing a kernel panic. These indicate catastrophic failure 
of the running OS X kernel, and may be caused by hardware or software 
problems. 

Some Minis are alleged to have been loaded with a corrupt disk image at 
Apple, and to have problems with kernel panics which can be solved 
simply by doing an "archive and install" from the discs that came with 
them. I would try that first. If you continue to experience problems, 
run the Apple Hardware Test that came with your computer to rule out 
defective hardware.

-- 
Photography, kink, polyamory, shareware, and more: all at 
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
0
tacitr (1750)
4/18/2007 1:39:22 AM
Reply: