MacBook Air.... MacBook Crap - Page 12

cwtnospam · 01-30-2008, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tlarkin


	This is highly subjective and goes on course with what you consider to be "booted".

When I start my car in the morning there is no heat but I can still drive it, so I consider it started. The OS has booted the moment the user can begin using it.

tlarkin · 01-30-2008, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cwtnospam


	When I start my car in the morning there is no heat but I can still drive it, so I consider it started. The OS has booted the moment the user can begin using it.

Car analogies do not work directly with computers because they are different. People use them all the time because most people who do not understand computers can at least equate it to a car.

Your car does not go through a start up process, and when you start your car every feature is available and you can drive it right away. The OS isn't "warming up" it hasn't launched all processes yet. Try launching applications right at boot up, and they do not instantly launch, and sometimes they hang.

Some things just are not available and it will affect the usage, where as a car it doesn't affect the usage it affects the environment that you experience in the car.

I don't know why you must argue with every single thing I ever post on any thread.

DigiAngel · 01-30-2008, 03:40 PM

Macbook Air = Oversized PDA

J Christopher · 01-30-2008, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tlarkin


	Well, why doesn't apple support USB booting.

The Intel Macs do, don't they? I thought PPCs running Leopard also support booting over USB.

retcynnm · 01-30-2008, 06:17 PM

USB booting is working for me, under leopard, on my MacBook. Haven't tried it yet with my aluminum PowerBook.

ArcticStones · 01-30-2008, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tlarkin


	...when you start your car every feature is available and you can drive it right away.

That’s not quite the way it works for me, at least not in the winter with a temperature of, say, -10˚C. From what I’ve heard a cold start is strongly inadvisable. I find that the engine does literally need to heat up -- and while it’s doing that, I’m scraping ice and snow off the windows, and perhaps even a layer of frosted condensation from inside the windshield.

Then I’m ready to go.

Nevertheless, you’re welcome to consider this the exception that proves your rule.

.

tlarkin · 01-30-2008, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArcticStones


	That’s not quite the way it works for me, at least not in the winter with a temperature of, say, -10˚C. From what I’ve heard a cold start is strongly inadvisable. I find that the engine does literally need to heat up -- and while it’s doing that, I’m scraping ice and snow off the windows, and perhaps even a layer of frosted condensation from inside the windshield. Then I’m ready to go. Nevertheless, you’re welcome to consider this the exception that proves your rule. .

You are a product of your environment though. Take your car down south where the weather is not like that and you simply start and go, with all features available. If I start a laptop in -10 degrees C, I think the screen would probably crack from it freezing.

However, using your example is more of what I am talking about with how OS X brings processes up and runs them. There is an in-depth article about launchd at afp548.com if anyone wishes to dig through it and read about it. I also believe that Bombich has a white page on it on his site's FAQ, but I am not 100% on that.

tlarkin · 01-30-2008, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by retcynnm


	USB booting is working for me, under leopard, on my MacBook. Haven't tried it yet with my aluminum PowerBook.

Well, I stand corrected then, I thought USB booting was only available via third party, and not natively supported. I have access to many intel machines and will try myself tomorrow at work.

ThreeDee · 01-30-2008, 07:52 PM

I' was just thinking about something. Also, there's people complaining that the processor speed "is like back from like 1999" or whatever, and everyone is forgetting that it's dual core.

Which basically means you (sort of) have double the processor speed. That dual 1.6 Ghz is almost like having a 3.2 Ghz processor, which isn't that bad... is it? Of course, to take full advantage of both cores, you need programs that are multi-processor aware.

Please correct me if i'm wrong. I don't really know what I'm talking about here.

Off-topic Question:
With a multi-core Mac, if you are running multiple apps that aren't multi-core aware, does the Mac 'split' the load, and have some apps use one core, while having other use another core?

Oh, and about USB booting, all Intel Macs can boot directly from a USB drive. There's reports of a few late G5 PowerMacs also being able to do this.

tlarkin · 01-30-2008, 08:28 PM

What you need is an OS that support multi-threading which Unix has for years, thus OS X also does as well. Now, the OS takes full advantage of it, but not every application out there does. Does that make sense? Also, its not double the speed. For several years now processors are not listed by their clock speed, instead they are given model numbers which reflect their benefits. Like dual core, clock speed, on die cache, built in instruction sets, core temperature, so on and so forth.

NovaScotian · 01-30-2008, 08:37 PM

In my experience (dual-core G5), watching what the cores are doing on iPulse while programs are doing something, very few apps I own operate single-side-only, and I expect that those are not threaded (they're old cocoa games). When such apps are running, it's always the same core that responds to the app, and the other one runs system stuff (iPulse differentiates by color).

NovaScotian · 01-30-2008, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tlarkin


	You are a product of your environment though. Take your car down south where the weather is not like that and you simply start and go, with all features available. If I start a laptop in -10 degrees C, I think the screen would probably crack from it freezing.

Although here in Nova Scotia, I know where he's coming from

Quote:


	However, using your example is more of what I am talking about with how OS X brings processes up and runs them. There is an in-depth article about launchd at afp548.com if anyone wishes to dig through it and read about it. I also believe that Bombich has a white page on it on his site's FAQ, but I am not 100% on that.

The best explanation I ever saw of the boot process is in Amit Singh's "Mac OS X Internals, A Systems Approach". Although it's reasonably brisk on my machine, there's a lot going on and most of the kernal's "attention" is devoted to discovering devices, getting stuff loaded, etc. Disk I/O is the major determinant, I think.

In the car analogy (I agree with Larkin), when the engine is running all is "go", but a better analogy to a computer's startup would be starting up a power boat: start the bilge blower and wait for fumes to exhaust, prime fuel pump, insert deadman, turn key, allow a warm up (unless you want to trash the engine and make a lot of smoke), put it in gear and go.

Jay Carr · 01-30-2008, 11:18 PM

But cars do have a "boot sequence" if you want to get technical (this is why analogies should never be examined to death.) Key>ignition>battery>starter (which has to be pushed out and turned)>sparks>fuel>alternator and then run starter through alternator until the darned thing actually starts. Not to mention that in a modern car you have to deal with all of the emissions mechanics that can inhibit the engine from starting if they are not engaged. Also, this start up sequence was for an automatic and was only for starting the engine. Steering and brakes take a few more steps.

No, it's not as complex as a computer starting up, and it all happens very fast, but it is a "boot sequence" if you will, at least to the extent that it happens sequentially.

tlarkin · 01-31-2008, 12:27 AM

I don't know boats that well at all, so I will agree with you

ArcticStones · 01-31-2008, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tlarkin


	If I start a laptop in -10 degrees C, I think the screen would probably crack from it freezing.

Probably not, although you may encounter other unexpected problems. I have heard of a researcher up in Alaska who started up his laptop to transfer some photos and data via his mobile phone (I think you call ’em cellulars). The cold drained his fully charged battery in less than 5 minutes!

I also know that when I have covered expeditions for Arctic explorer Børge Ousland, he carries the batteries for his satellite phone and camera in a special headband or in a pocket close to his body, to keep them warm. For that very reason.

I live on the coast, so it’s rather temperate. Rarely falls below minus 10 or 15 Celsius here in the winter.
.

Jay Carr · 01-31-2008, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArcticStones


	I live on the coast, so it’s rather temperate. Rarely falls below minus 10 or 15 Celsius here in the winter. .

Oddly, that's the exact temperature that my soul freezes at. I have no idea how you stand those temperatures. Surely you come from a far more hardy stock that myself.

GavinBKK · 01-31-2008, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zalister


	But cars do have a "boot sequence" if you want to get technical (this is why analogies should never be examined to death.) Key>ignition>battery>starter (which has to be pushed out and turned)>sparks>fuel>alternator and then run starter through alternator until the darned thing actually starts. Not to mention that in a modern car you have to deal with all of the emissions mechanics that can inhibit the engine from starting if they are not engaged. Also, this start up sequence was for an automatic and was only for starting the engine. Steering and brakes take a few more steps. No, it's not as complex as a computer starting up, and it all happens very fast, but it is a "boot sequence" if you will, at least to the extent that it happens sequentially.

Whilst you can jump in and go, once you have started the engine, it is actually very poor practice to do so. It actually takes quite a few seconds to get the oil moving - longer if you have not used the car for a while. By starting and going, you are causing unnecessary wear on the engine, particularly the bearing surfaces. I always start my cars and then load whatever bags, etc., I have. Gives the motor a bit of time to breathe and lubricate. In Bangkok, being heavily polluted, it also saves you from getting your face shot-blasted by the ambient dust that will have settled in the aircon vents.

GavinBKK · 01-31-2008, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArcticStones


	I live on the coast, so it’s rather temperate. Rarely falls below minus 10 or 15 Celsius here in the winter. .

Oh joy! ONLY -15??? Do they pay you to live there?

I HATE being cold. At least when it gets over 35 C here, I can go stand in the shade, find some aircon.

Do those temperatures not have any negative effects on the tyres then?

J Christopher · 01-31-2008, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GavinBKK


	Whilst you can jump in and go, once you have started the engine, it is actually very poor practice to do so. It actually takes quite a few seconds to get the oil moving - longer if you have not used the car for a while.

I'm not sure I believe this. I've heard it all my life, and it seems reasonable until you consider that the oil is being distributed throughout the engine surface most slowly when the engine is idling. If known a rare few who consistently rev up their engine to a rather high RPM for several seconds immediately upon startup with no ill effects. Personally, I don't believe it makes much difference either way, since the oil distribution should be roughly linear with engine speed.

J Christopher · 01-31-2008, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GavinBKK


	Oh joy! ONLY -15??? Do they pay you to live there? I HATE being cold. At least when it gets over 35 C here, I can go stand in the shade, find some aircon.

I agree completely. I lived on Oahu (Hawai'i) for two years, and have been ruined for non tropical climates. It gets way too cold for my tastes here in Florida, but I'm pretty sure it hasn't hit -15˚C for quite some time, if ever in the 7+ years I've lived here.

Once it gets below 60˚F (15.5˚C), it doesn't matter; it's simply too cold!

01-30-2008, 07:52 PM	#229
ThreeDee Hall of Famer Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: USA Posts: 3,418	I' was just thinking about something. Also, there's people complaining that the processor speed "is like back from like 1999" or whatever, and everyone is forgetting that it's dual core. Which basically means you (sort of) have double the processor speed. That dual 1.6 Ghz is almost like having a 3.2 Ghz processor, which isn't that bad... is it? Of course, to take full advantage of both cores, you need programs that are multi-processor aware. Please correct me if i'm wrong. I don't really know what I'm talking about here. Off-topic Question: With a multi-core Mac, if you are running multiple apps that aren't multi-core aware, does the Mac 'split' the load, and have some apps use one core, while having other use another core? Oh, and about USB booting, all Intel Macs can boot directly from a USB drive. There's reports of a few late G5 PowerMacs also being able to do this. __________________ 15" MacBook Pro (Mid 2010), 2.4 GHz Core i5, 10.6.5, 4GB RAM PowerMac G4 "Quicksilver", 733 MHz, 10.4.11, 1.5GB RAM iPod Touch 5G, 32GB, iOS 6.1.3 Last edited by ThreeDee; 01-30-2008 at 07:55 PM.

01-30-2008, 08:37 PM	#231
NovaScotian League Commissioner Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Halifax, Canada Posts: 5,156	In my experience (dual-core G5), watching what the cores are doing on iPulse while programs are doing something, very few apps I own operate single-side-only, and I expect that those are not threaded (they're old cocoa games). When such apps are running, it's always the same core that responds to the app, and the other one runs system stuff (iPulse differentiates by color). __________________ 17" MBP, OS X; 27" iMac, both OS X 10.10.x (latest)

01-30-2008, 11:18 PM	#233
Jay Carr Hall of Famer Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Springfield, MO, USA Posts: 3,110	But cars do have a "boot sequence" if you want to get technical (this is why analogies should never be examined to death.) Key>ignition>battery>starter (which has to be pushed out and turned)>sparks>fuel>alternator and then run starter through alternator until the darned thing actually starts. Not to mention that in a modern car you have to deal with all of the emissions mechanics that can inhibit the engine from starting if they are not engaged. Also, this start up sequence was for an automatic and was only for starting the engine. Steering and brakes take a few more steps. No, it's not as complex as a computer starting up, and it all happens very fast, but it is a "boot sequence" if you will, at least to the extent that it happens sequentially. __________________ ~ Long ago I was called Zalister, keep that in mind when reading responses to my old posts.

01-30-2008, 03:40 PM	#223
DigiAngel Prospect Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 14	Macbook Air = Oversized PDA

01-30-2008, 06:17 PM	#225
retcynnm Triple-A Player Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: San Francisco Posts: 244	USB booting is working for me, under leopard, on my MacBook. Haven't tried it yet with my aluminum PowerBook.

01-30-2008, 08:28 PM	#230
tlarkin League Commissioner Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Bay Area, CA Posts: 11,352	What you need is an OS that support multi-threading which Unix has for years, thus OS X also does as well. Now, the OS takes full advantage of it, but not every application out there does. Does that make sense? Also, its not double the speed. For several years now processors are not listed by their clock speed, instead they are given model numbers which reflect their benefits. Like dual core, clock speed, on die cache, built in instruction sets, core temperature, so on and so forth.

01-31-2008, 12:27 AM	#234
tlarkin League Commissioner Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Bay Area, CA Posts: 11,352	I don't know boats that well at all, so I will agree with you